sources:
http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/06/why-legal-weed-is-working-in-colorado/
On January 1st, in what
many are calling “green Wednesday” (Altman). sColorado rolled out the law that
passed last year, legalizing the sale, use, and growth of marijuana for
recreational purposes. Most of us know this, but is Colorado’s current law legal?
What we have, is an interesting dynamic of federalism at play. Throughout our
nation’s history, states have tried to assert their own agendas, even if they
contradicted federal law. Will the federal government force Colorado to close
down marijuana dispensaries? Probably not. Then, what’s the point of a national
ban on the drug? This get’s even more complicated when you consider the role of
the courts. “In august, the legal
justice department said it will not challenge states which legalize
recreational marijuana, but it still remains illegal under federal law” (CNN,
Shmidt).
Instead of centering comments on
what this story means for the fight for marijuana legalization or
decriminalization, let’s discuss what this means for the federal government.
What do it mean for the states? Does this represent a trend of a more hands
off, libertarian federal government? Could Colorado have had such a successful roll
out of their law with a republican president or senate in charge?
For a short, but comprehensive overview of the status of legal marijuana in colorado and the conditions of the law check out the video here: http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/06/why-legal-weed-is-working-in-colorado
2 comments:
In my opinion it's good to see the federal government take a step back and let the states do their thing, but it doesn't seem to me that this represents a trend. I think that the federal government's lack of action on this issue is very specific to the issue itself, and doesn't necessarily indicate that another devolution is on its way. For example, if a state planned to vote on a law prohibiting abortion, then I think Eric Holder would have something to say about that and the federal government would step in. But pot? Everybody loves weed, right? Increasingly more people are coming to support the legalization of weed, and Obama and his buddies recognize this trend and aren't trying to buck it. Now things would be different if a Republican were in Obama's place. The door swings both ways, and a Republican dominated federal government could easily crash Colorado and Washington's party. Will that happen? We'll have to wait a few years to see, but maybe by then Republicans will loosen up a bit.
Well, I think that Quinn put it perfectly. Marijuana is a special case in terms of the federal hands off policy. This is a law that a large portion of the country is against and creating conflict with the states would be detrimental to the federal government's aims for support. This seems to be one time where they will just turn the other way because the states like Colorado are only the start. The federal government will take a hit (pun intended) on the marijuana laws and hope to keep control over the states on other issues.
If there was a Republican president or senate this federalism debate would probably not have went as it has, but I believe it is just a matter of time before more states follow in the path of Colorado. This would make it flat out wasteful to try to stop for the federal government. The federal government will maintain their superiority over the states, but marijuana is just one battle they couldn't afford to fight.
Post a Comment