Question

Outline federal and state relations in regards to ((marijuana policy)) ...should this issue be decided at the federal or state level? Why? Which Constitutional provision(s) would you use to support your argument? Explain why.

Answer 1

The unique internal play between state and federal relations has led to what looks like an unsolvable situation in which both the federal criminal prohibition on marijuana and state medical marijuana exemption coexist. Recently in a report according to a resident of California who uses marijuana for medical purposes in compliance with California law is at the same time in violation of the federal laws and potentially to be prosecuted by federal authorities. This prosecution, however, is rare. The federal government has limited resources to act in investigating and enforcing federal drug laws. As a consequence, various federal administrations have formally suggested that it would not prosecute individuals who use medicinal marijuana in a manner consistent with state laws. This is a potential billion-dollar industry, with the latest estimates showing $51 million this budget cycle and $139 million in the next budget cycle. Recently Colorado’s governor predicted about a billion dollars in pot sales in the next fiscal year, and in January alone, Colorado gained $2 million in revenue taxes on marijuana sales. So, marijuana remains illegal under federal law but not under state law, the main problem for lawyers is rooted in the conflicting state and federal laws, which lawyers have sworn to uphold. This struggle over marijuana regulation is one of the most important federalism conflicts in the history of the country. I personally feel that this issue should be dealt on a state level because even if the federal government is prohibited from mandating that the states adopt laws supportive of federal policy, the constitutional doctrine of preemption generally prevents states from enacting laws that are inconsistent with federal law. Under the Supremacy Clause under the United States Constitution, state laws that conflict with federal law are generally preempted and therefore void. Thus, where one cannot simultaneously comply with both state and federal law, or where the state law directly frustrates the purpose of federal law, the state law is preempted. Although state laws that merely exempt qualified users of medical marijuana from state prosecution have consistently survived preemption difficulties, state laws that assure authority and understand that marijuana may pose a more serious problem to the accomplishment of federal objectives. So supporting them state laws federally and keeping the laws under their thumb would be the right move. This interplay between state and federal law will produce a unique legal result. While an individual may be able to possess, distribute, or cultivate marijuana for limited purposes under these regulations.