Thursday, June 23, 2011
Current Event #3: Ron Paul Bill Would End Federal War on Marijuana
This one will get you talking. Read the summary and think about the questions that Friedersdorf asks. Try to focus not as much on whether or not marijuana should be legalized, but about the issue of who has the right to decide--the states or the federal government. It's the answer to that question that will have a much more meaningful impact on how our government develops over the next few decades.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In my opinion the federal government should not be able to decide whether marijuana should be legal or illegal. It should be chosen by the state, because the seriousness of the problem should be decided by the state, rather than a federal law. For example, if a state really does not like the drug, and thinks it's the worst possible thing to obtain, then the law of that state could be that if an officer smells marijuana, then you are immediately arrested for about a year. Whereas if a state does not mind the drug as much, they could decide to form a law that says you will not be arrested for having marijuana, only if you are caught using it. But since the federal government is currently allowed to decide, the punishment for the usage or possession is almost universal regardless of how the state wishes to handle it.
ReplyDeleteOpinions are so varied on the topic of the legalization of marijuana and the issue is so important that, in my opinion, the decision would be best left up to the state legislature. This leaves the opportunity for the individual states to choose what is in the best interest of their people, because people have such strong and varied viewpoints on the topic that the laws would definitely be different in each state if that were possible. Of course if that were the case people would be moving around states depending on what they want, but I think that's okay as long as the majority opinion of each state is satisfied. And obviously not everyone can be happy, but the best any government can do is reach a compromise so that as many people as possible are content and things are still running smoothly for the most part. On the other hand, my feeling is that people feel so strongly about this situation that they won't pass this bill because they'll want whatever their opinion is to be the final say for everyone, but that's just stubbornness for you.
ReplyDeleteIn an ideal world, states could easily come up with a bill for legalizing or banning marijuana and pass it in the state legislature. Unfortunately in the real world, the legality of marijuana is an issue that splits the country in half. No matter what states decide, the opposing side would rise up and defend their views. Just as Bonnie said, not everyone can be happy. In my opinion, the federal government should have the power to decide whether or not marijuana should be legalized. One law for the whole land is a lot less controversial than each state choosing. The idea of each state having the power to choose may be appealing, but the costs of this decision outweigh the benefits tremendously. Marijuana that goes to states that have legalized it might be shipped through states that have banned it. Is this now breaking the law of the state that banned it? In order to exercise the freedom in one state there might be laws broken in other states. Think about the economy of each state. Would some states be more prosperous than others based on the law they choose? Equality between states is a big part of the US and I would hate to see that start to disappear.
ReplyDeleteEmily B.
I agree with Emily B. Letting the states to choose whether or not to legalize marijuana, while it sounds ideal, would only create conflict. Inevitably, some states would legalize it and others wouldn’t, and borders would become half-illegal trade centers. There wouldn’t be reinforcements on one side, but on the other side police would know where trade was happening. This would also create problems within the illegal drug market, as the dealers and growers in states that legalized would be able to make lots of money, which could only create problems, and those in states that hadn’t legalized would be caught in the middle of conflict. Whether or not the national government chose to legalize the drug, the ruling would apply to the entire country, which would most likely eliminate conflicts that would occur if there were differences in legality among individual states. Also, in terms of precedent, the legality of alcohol was determined by the national government (even if Prohibition was extremely unpopular), all legal drugs are regulated by the federal government through the FDA, the federal government has, in the past, chosen which drugs are and aren’t illegal, and cigarette warning labels are federally regulated. Giving states leeway in such a big conflict will cause more trouble than it is worth. In this case, I think we need to put the rights of states aside because, in allowing them to choose for themselves, we almost guarantee inequality between them.
ReplyDeleteMira N.
I think that is is good to let the states make their own laws and regulations regarding use and sale of marijuana. I believe that in border states especially California, the legalization of marijuana can boost their economies. California is a historically liberal state willing to try multiple things and where legalized marijuana is a common debate subject. It can also potentially reduce the drug trade across the United States-Mexico border, where marijuana is smuggled through each and every day. While this is going on, strong anti-marijuana states have the freedom to continue to outlaw marijuana. This can create an ideal balance where those who want marijuana legalized can have it, and those who don't can still live with it being illegal.
ReplyDeleteBen S.
I think that the state governments should decide whether or not marijuana should be legalized. However, that is easier said than done because as we saw in several court cases, the federal government always trumps the state. If the state governments decide to legalize marijuana, enforcement of whatever law they decide to pass would be much easier because it’s on a much smaller scale. The federal government would only get in the way if they decide whether or not to legalize marijuana because they would have to do things on a country-wide level which could take forever to organize. The federal government shouldn’t be able to force governments that don’t want marijuana to be legalized to allow it nor should they prohibit marijuana where the states think it should be allowed. There is no freedom when force is used. Besides, the federal governments have enough problems to deal with without having to deal with marijuana on top of all of that so they should sit back and let the state governments to what they were created to do.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the supremacy clause, the federal government is the supreme law of the land and I believe the federal government alone should have the final say in whether marijuana is legalized. It is too complicated if each state has their own laws about marijuana. There’s no telling how different state laws would impact the U.S. as a whole. It reminds me of the argument about gay marriage; it will have to go to the Supreme Court because right now, all the different state laws make it too confusing. As Emily was saying, what if you are simply passing threw a state where marijuana is illegal? Does that mean you have broken the law? Too many civil rights would come into conflict if each state had a different law. Also, how would an entire state come to a true consensus on the issue? What if half of the state approved and half disapproved, how would the state decide to legalize or illegalize marijuana? This needs to be settled by the Federal government. If this bill is approved, it will set a precedent for specific issues being reserved to the states instead of just a generic provision regarding state rights. If this bill is passed, it raises the questions regarding, what other issues will be untouchable by the federal government? Will abortion and gun control now be left entirely up to the states?
ReplyDeleteAlaina B.
I think that the easiest way to resolve the legalization issue is to give the states the power to decide. Because the country is so divided on this issue, it will be incredibly difficult to pass legislation at the federal level. I don't think that it's wise to consume the Senate and House's time with this issue. It will be much easier for a state to decide what the law will be because the states tend to lean in one direction more than the country as a whole, as Ben S. said. This means that there will be less opposition for a state law than there will be for a federal law, because the states won't have opposition from citizens of states from the other side of the political spectrum. Also, if states could decide for themselves, they could choose different punishments that their citizens best agree with. Giving states the decision eliminates a lot of the hassle and will create laws that more people are happy with. I don't think it will be a problem to respect other state's laws regarding marijuana, so I will have to disagree with Alaina B when she said it would be too complicated.
ReplyDeleteEllis M.
I believe that the debate on whether marijuana should be legalized should be left up to the states. The federal government is already trying to reduce the national debt and pass a budget. Because there are so many different opinions on whether we should legalize marijuana, it only makes the governments much harder. Even if the government is in charge of legalizing it, whatever law that one party or member of Congress proposes there will always be someone who has a different idea. I agree with Ellis M. and Ben S. that allowing the states to decide will not create a conflict between federal and state laws
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily and Mira, in saying that although it would most likely be preferable that each State decide on the legality of Marijuana itself, unless each individual state comes to the same conclusion it will only cause more conflict. The border between states allowing or condemning the use and sale of Marijuana would become infested with illegal activity. The rate of smuggling within the country would rise exponentially, and the crime and tension between each state would rise as well. Either way the law would be protested by someone, so it should be considered how the country as a whole would be affected. It would be ideal for this decision to be left up to state legislature if the U.S. were more like 50 separate countries, but since we are the United States of America, one Federal decision to allow or ban Marijuana would be most beneficial for our country in the long run.
ReplyDelete-Nile R
I believe that legalizing Marijuana should be up to the federal government. Once a federal law enacted, the state governments should be allowed to shape the law by placing limitations and restrictions. If the states are allowed to decide for themselves this could cause a rise in drug trafficking and violence between the states with different laws.
ReplyDeleteAllowing the states to decide could create conflicts on the borders. It would be like the laws they have about fireworks, for example, you can buy them in South Carolina but is illegal to set them off, and you can set them off in North Carolina but not buy them. Even though there will be laws and limitations that won’t stop people from using or selling the drug in states were it is prohibited.
If this federal bill is passed, the states will still put limitations on the drug as they do with alcohol, cigars, and cigarettes. Also, tax revenue would boost the economy for years to come. It’s just like back in 1933 with the prohibition. By allowing the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcohol to be legal again it enhanced the economy, and considering our current economy this would be great now as well.
Abbie R.
I think the federal government should choose whether or not marijuana should be legalized. I agree with Emily, Mira and Nile that having each state choose marijuana’s legality will cause even more problems, because so many people have different opinions on the matter. If North Carolina makes marijuana legal, but South Carolina does not then if someone crosses the state border with marijuana they will be breaking the law. States will have to use more money to prosecute these cases, because states have different legislatures about marijuana. If each state were able to choose the legality of marijuana not everyone in those states would agree with the law, I do not think it’s possible to come up with a decision that will please everyone. The best way to handle the legality of marijuana in my opinion is that the federal government shall make one decision that way everyone in the country has to follow the same law concerning marijuana. If that were possible then their would not be as many issues from state to state and everyone in the country will have the same equal rights and the states will have an equality on the matter.
ReplyDelete-Vanessa C.
Message bodyI don’t think the federal government should cede power to the states. There would be more problems between the states as others have stated before. Everyone’s opinion on legalizing marijuana will never be the same, so why cause even more problems by letting each state decide? Medical Marijuana is already legal in 16 states. However under federal law selling medical marijuana is illegal. If states were to legalize marijuana there would more than likely be an age limit, which would cause people to break the law. Two states could have two different age limits, so what would one of a lesser age do in another state? These are just simple conflicts but, what happens if two states have completely different laws? This is why the federal governments should decide whether or not marijuana should be legal.
ReplyDelete-QuaneishaR.
Here I see two arguments. The first being that the legality of marijuana should be up to the states discretion so as to satisfy the differing opinions as well as economic needs of each state. The second; it should be up to the Federal government in order to reduce conflicts and complication. Both are valid arguments, but only one can win. With our current government, it is unlikely for a bill of this sort to even be considered on the floor, however it is not whether or not is passes that is important in this situation. It is the idea that state governments should have more power in decisions that could directly affect them rather than the country as a whole that is significant. Ideally, state government and federal government share power, each making the decisions of their authority, but in reality the federal government abuses their power and gets involved in business that was originally up to the states. The legalization of marijuana is a perfect example; it is a drug just like alcohol but is controlled by federal law rather than being left to states to regulate as they see fit for their people. But in the end, whatever federal law is goes. However the state governments are thought to be closer to the people and their views, and it is the views of the people that are suppose to power all government decisions. By not leaving this decision or the legalization/regulation of the drug up to the states, we are drifting away from our core values of “by the people, for the people” government. We are leaving the decision in the hands of the people who think they know what is best for our country based on overall statistics, when it is the finer details that have the greatest impact.
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading through everybody's posts on the matter, I saw that most people discussed the issue of conflict: 1.) there would be border wars between states, and 2.) different states have different opinions, and passing a federal law would make more than half of the states very angry. These are very valid opinions, and do pose many problems in regard to the passage of the bill. However, not one person has come to mention the practicality of federally legalizing marijuana. Say that there was a democratically controlled legislative branch, and that this year, the Democrats passed a bill making marijuana legal in all 50 states, D.C., Samoa, etc.. Give it a few months. Teenagers go crazy, drug lords in mexico lose profit, and the liberal states are happy. Then comes November, 2012. Republicans take Congress. They pass the budget, and then move on to their second task. What is this? Passing another bill that will repeal the one that was previously instated. Billions of dollars are used to clean the streets and homes of the now illegal substance, and months of Congress' time is wasted. The cycle continues through 2014. Legalizing marijuana may bring a profit, but not nearly enough to cover the expenses of passing and repealing the same bill every 2-4 years. It is for this reason, even if it does cause border wars, that states should have authority to decide for themselves (states generally keep the same party in control year after year).
ReplyDeleteI personally think that we should allow the states to choose to legalize marijuana or not. I think that the federal government is becoming too overworked and is too involved in people's lives. Giving this decision to the states removes some of the burden of the federal government and gives the people more control over their everyday lives. Many of the other comments point out the problems that would occur if states could legalize the drug, and I agree that they are good points. However, I disagree with most of them. California, one of the most liberal states, already tried to legalize marijuana, but the voters struck it down. If California didn't legalize it, how many states would? I don't think chaos would reign even if half of the states legalized it and half didn't. The image that comes to my mind of what would happen is what happens now with fireworks. People in states where marijuana is illegal would drive to a state where it isn't for a day and buy some. If any states did legalize marijuana, I don't think it would have that big of an impact.
ReplyDeleteKevin C.
I believe that the decision to ban or legalize marijuana should be left to the states. The federal government was granted the power to regulate interstate commerce, but that does not give them the power to ban a substance in a state. Having the states decide the legality will make the greatest number of people happy with the outcome, and the fewest people upset. Some people have posted concerns about a difference between states causing confusion but, there are plenty of differences in state laws that don't cause chaos and I don't think that these drug laws would be any different. Already some states have more money than others, different school curriculums and traffic laws, and other inequalities, but this has not been too much of a problem before. I think that the states can come up with a much better solution for their people than the federal government ever could.
ReplyDeleteEveryone, whether they want it to be up to the state or federal government, has made very good points. Because of it, it is hard for me to decide. I agree with Abbie-if the Federal government had control over the legalization of marijuana, then it would good if each state were able to put their own restrictions on it. I also agree with Shelby that it is most likely that if the Federal government had the power to decide, that with all the other issues they are trying to face right now, that legalizing or banning marijuana would NOT be at the top of their "to do" list. Also, it would violate the right of the people of each state to decide what they think is best for themselves. But at the same time I agree with Emily,Mira,Nile and Vanessa that it would ideally be good if states decided, but the country is divided over the issue so it might be best for the Federal government. I do think that in a sense, it would ease complications that would arise if states decided (i.e. coming from a state where it is legal into a state where it isn't). But when the Federal government is constantly switching between Republican and Democratic rule, the law about marijuana would probably go through many alterations every new election year. After all, it is most likely that whatever one party believes, the other party won't feel the same.
ReplyDelete-Elise K.
I think that it would make some sense for the federal government to regulate marijuana if it were to be legalized, but it would cause controversy by going against amendments, making making marijuana legal a more arduous process. It might also be easier/more practical if they were to control it. However, it seems more ideal for the states to legalize it gradually over time. This process of it even becoming legal is going to take years; it would take even longer were the federal government to make it legal, because it would have to be approved by all states which isn’t likely to happen. If it becomes legal state by state, it’d let them put regulations on marijuana as they please (per state).
ReplyDeleteIsabel S.
Since medical marijuana is legalized in some states, for its medical use I believe there should be compromise between state and federal government. The federal government should be able to regulate the legal age, amount, and distribution of the marijuana. Having the federal government decide what’s allowed within states is unfair and pointless, simply because everyone has a fair say, just because lawmakers don’t like marijuana doesn’t mean individual states don’t mind the idea of its legalization. Also I believe that if a drug can be administered for “health purposes” and serve the same effects as being a leisure activity for others, it isn’t lethal. Letting states decide what to do with this law would be highly controversial because of the supremacy clause, but should we let the government control everything?
ReplyDelete-Teewon R
I do not believe that there would be any less conflict if the issue of marijuana legalization were resolved at the state level rather than the national level. If anything, there would be more conflict because people who didn't agree with their state's law would try to circumvent it by taking advantage of laws in other states. The federal government is supreme and should decide the issue, no matter how hard it may be to reach a consensus. Alcohol's legality has been determined on the federal level, and marijuana should not be any different. I think that both sides of the legal/illegal debate have valid points, and coming to a decision will be extremely difficult wherever it is made.
ReplyDeleteKathryn T.
I believe that the states should have the right to decide to legalize or not legalize marijuana over the federal government but I agree with Teewon that the federal government should regulate marijuana as they do for alcohol. Many people are divided on this issue and for that reason, the federal government should not be completely in charge of the issue of legalizing marijuana because whichever decision they make, the whole country cannot be satisfied. The states should be the ones to decide if they think marijuana should be legal or not because they are more representative of the people and are more likely to make a decision that the majority of people in that state want.
ReplyDeleteI think that the federal government should have the right to legalize marijuana, but allow the states to embellish on the law whether it was to create an age minimum, penalties for illegal trafficking, or how much to tax it. But I also agree that with everything going on right now this debate would have to sit for a while and I really can’t see an issue like this making any headway on the floor of the house or the senate any time soon. so I can see why that would be opposed. I agree with Kathryn that allowing states to control the legalization of marijuana would create too many unnecessary conflicts.
ReplyDelete-Sophia O
In my opinion, the federal government should authorize this decision. Considering if the states are granted the power to legalize or illegalize drugs, they will have to come up with the monetary funds to enforce this predicament. With the state's strict budget policy, the consequences will lead to increasing taxes and/or budget cuts. Additionally, if some states legalize it and others do not, it is more manageable and facile to smuggle drugs across state borders than to smuggle them across foreign countries. In this economy, the impact of state authorization of deciding whether drugs should or should not be illegal with leave the citizens in a vulnerable and ambiguous state.
ReplyDelete-Maggie H
Due to the fact that there are so many opinions across the States regarding the legalization of marijuana, I believe that leaving the decision up to the State legislatures would create a great amount of tension and conflict that could be avoided if it were left in the Federal government's hands. Although it may seem the best to let each state's laws correspond with it's people's opinions, in the long run it could create too many complications. For example, if smoking marijuana was legalized in South Carolina, but not North Carolina, and a resident of South Carolina is visiting NC and happens to get arrested and charged for smoking and illegal substance, I believe that this particular person wouldn't be to pleased about this. The mere fact that a state border line determines whether or not this individual has committed a crime is ridiculous in my opinion. If it were anything else, such as driving or tattoo laws, it would be understandable. However, the issue of the legalization of marijuana is such an important one that I feel it should be left up to the federal government to make an all-encompassing decision.
ReplyDelete--Maliyah T.
Because legalizing marijuana is such a contravertial subject, it should be left up to the federal government to make the final decision. If you leave it up to the states to determine whether it should be legalized or not, then one state may decide to legalize it while the state right next to it made it illegal. So anyone can just drive over the border and smoke their marijuana in the open and then just go back home. It just doest make sense. Would North Carolia have to turn over someone from Virginia who was smking marijuana because it is legal in North Carlina but not in Virginia? It just complicates it and that is why it should be left up to the federal government to make the law and all states to follow it.
ReplyDeleteThe federal government has classified marijuana as a schedule 1 drug under the "Controlled Substances Act of 1970" stating that it has no potential for medical use and is of a highly addictive nature. The basis of the argument for its illegality is untrue. But beyond that, it is a violation of states rights do decide what is legal and illegal withing their respective borders. Laws of this nature should be voted on by the people, or if not by the people, by those elected by the people on a state by state basis. The federal government has over stepped its bounds. It brings to mind the "Legal Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984" The federal government "cheated" to raise the drinking age from 18 to 21 by threatening to deny 10% of federal highway funds to the states in noncompliance with the act. Needless to say the states sold out and the drinking age is what it is today. And yes, it is hypocritical that tea party members voted no on legalization, but still want no part of Obamacare.
ReplyDelete