Under federal law, marijuana, for any use, is illegal. Even with this in mind, 16 states have declared it legal for medical use, and now the governors of Washington and Rhode Island are petitioning the federal government to alter the law to make medical marijuana legal. Currently, marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug, meaning there is “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” Those governors would rather it be classified as Schedule II, which would allow “some accepted medical use and may be prescribed, administered or dispensed for medical use.”
Federal law says it is illegal, but some state laws say otherwise.
This sounds like a problem where national and state powers are in conflict. The supremacy clause in our Constitution states that national law is supreme to all others, however, this has not proven to be valid in this case. Should the federal government alter the law? It seems to create confusion among the people. Washington's governor stated, "In the midst of all the chaos we have patients who really either feel like they’re criminals or may be engaged in some criminal activity." There seems to be a blurred line between the power of the federal government's law and those of state governments.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I think that the government should reclassify the drug. By reclassifying, it's not like they're making it totally legal to distribute as much pot as people want. In states where medical marijuana is legal, only small amounts are allowed to be given out. The number of states allowing this are only increasing, and it wouldn't make sense to have such a widely accepted law among the states, yet have it be illegal under federal law.
While the states are violating the Supremacy clause, I think that the federal government also needs to take some action to ease the tension. Both the states and the federal government need to give and take to make this work.
I think that they definitely need to clear up lines between federal and state law just to clear up lines for the people themselves. If the people are confused on whether it's legal or not, it will only make both laws inefficient and harder to ease in.
For the time being, I think that the states should bow to the will of the Federal government on this issue and make medical marijuana illegal. The reason I said for the time being is that science is currently working on ways to dodge the adverse effects of consuming marijuana (like major increase in the likelihood of getting cancer being one). Until a time where science gets to the point where it is almost risk-free (I know no medicine is risk-free) I think marijuana should remain illegal for all purposes. For me, something about using a drug that people mainly name as a recreational drug doesn't make feel better. It makes me think, what am I taking?
I got my information mainly from this article so hope it helps.
I don't know why, but the article that I referred to in my comment did not actually get posted so I'm trying again. Hope it works.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html
There has been no evidence to show that marijuana "increases the likelihood of getting cancer" like Patrick said. In fact, it's used by thousands of cancer patients every day as a way to significantly increase their food intake. I think you meant smoking increases your likelihood of cancer, not the weed itself...
I think this goes back to the idea of the Supremacy Clause. Obviously, federal laws trumps state laws, but the states do have the ability to petition the courts to change that law. As for medical marijuana, I think that a misconception is that if medical marijuana were to be legalized, then the country would be in havoc and crime rates would go up. However, if the federal government really did legalize the use of medical marijuana, I am almost certain that they would find a way to regulate it. Thus, marijuana would be much harder to get.
Legalization of marijuana would be beneficial to our nation. Economically, it would raise money through taxes and create a new commercial product. It would also lower crime rates since marijuana would be much easier and much more legal to obtain rendering drug cartels that ferry marijuana across borders useless. Drug tunnels such as the one described in this article: http://news.yahoo.com/agents-uncover-most-sophisticated-drug-tunnel-years-143712908.html would no longer be a problem. From the consumer perspective, government regulated marijuana would be infinitely better than illegal black market marijuana. 1, it would be legal. 2, the price would probably be lower since there would be competition between producers which would drive the price down. 3, it would be safer since after legalization, marijuana could be regulated by the FDA which would ensure 100% marijuana that isn't laced with some harmful alien substance. Like cigarettes, there could be an age limit applied to marijuana. Legalization of marijuana would not make it any easier for teens to obtain it. It actually might discourage some from wanting to smoke it since it's legal and doesn't have the appeal of being cool and dangerous anymore.
I completely agree with Kenny. Attempting to control something that can be used as medicine is a poor argument compared to the prohibition times. Alcohol for sure does not help in the health area, but drinking it is still legal. By allowing medical marijuana, the government is essentially increasing restrictions by narrowing down the focus of the law, making it easier to monitor as well. I think this issue is a good representation of the states rights v. federal government that should just be settled, to avoid more of these confrontations.
Regardless of whether marijuana is reclassified as legal or properly enforced as illegal throughout the nation, I think it's important to clear up the blurred lines of authority that have been created by the medical marijuana issue. I think the government needs to come down on one side of the issue simply in order to maintain its credibility and reputability when it comes to law enforcement. It doesn't matter what a law says if it isn't being enforced; allowing laws to be flouted degrades legislative potency.
I see the conflict presented here, but is it really too much to ask citizens to know how their own constitution works? Is it too much to ask that you know what laws apply to you in the state that you live in? I don't understand why this "blurred line" seems so dramatic when it could all be fixed by some curiosity, a little research, and a pinch of loyalty. Am I wrong in thinking that?
Oh, this totally relates to the Supremacy clause in the constitution. It doesn't matter what the State Governments say, if the federal law states that marijuana is illegal, then it will override any state law that says otherwise. If we are to legalize marijuana, we'll have to either get rid of the federal law that states it is not, or we'll have to petition to make marijuana a class two drug.
I feel that living in California, and even more specifically the Bay Area, leaves us a little more open about the idea of marijuana; this is apparent in how not only is medical marijuana legal in CA, but we have almost legalized marijuana entirely. However, nationally, I'm sure marijuana is a much more controversial topic. As of current, the national government has ruled marijuana (even for medical purposes) illegal, but the California federal government blatantly ignores this ruling. Like Anna mentioned,I think that it is important for the national government and the state government to agree and equally enforce a law in order to maintain credibility. However, in this situation, I don't feel that it is imperative the national and federal government draw a distinct line. So far, the people haven't voiced any doubt or disapproval as to how the national and state government have colliding opinions, so why waste the time and resources to change something that is working?
i also believe that we need to make it more clear between federal laws and state laws. i also believe that they should reclassify medical marijuana because some people may actually need it and the people that actually need it have to feel like they are criminals and even deal with criminals when they actually need it for medicine.
Post a Comment