A splendid surprise for marijuana users (medical users, that is) came in an announcement from the Department of Justice that federal officials will no longer prosecute legal users or providers. The announcement has made states the primary authorities in dealing with their own laws regarding medical marijuana and its uses.
The measure has presented a key dilemma in federalism: to what extent can states dictate their own law without the support of federal standards? The answer, varying greatly across states, has some claiming that the federal government has abandoned a key responsibility.
The result has a been a sporadic scramble across the country as states move back and forth on issues previously handled by the federal government. Some states, having already legalized marijuana, have welcomed the policy as finally freeing them to pursue their own policies to the fullest extent without the intrusion of the federal government. Others, seeking to legalize marijuana in the near future, welcome the change as important in their own paths forward . Still, others (those states that depended on federal support for administering their own system) have reacted in disbelief amidst the budget cuts that have consumed states across the country. In response, they have imposed bans or moratoriums on current uses of medical marijuana.
The question is not whether the legalization of marijuana is itself a worthy cause (in fact, the cause has garnered considerable support as of late from those who advocate its therapeutic qualities and the importance legalization would have on tax revenues). The question is one of control. By adopting a hands-off approach, the federal government has created a legal vacuum for two key actors: states that do not possess the means for enforcing their own standards and states that have failed to define their own stance on the issue.
The government has taken a great effort at making states the authors of their own fate. To an extent, the new approach has empowered local lawmakers to exercise greater control over a policy that was previously left to higher authorities—oftentimes authorities drowned by bureaucratic barriers of time and money. While this is a move for the better in matters of republicanism, the government has provided little consolation for states bogged down in the logistical constraints of modern democracy. In states where institutional restraints and budgetary concerns do not allow for the enforcement of a state’s own law, the federal government should provide at least some sort of institutional or monetary support (at least temporarily) until states get their act together.
For an in-depth look at the political controversy, read more at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/us/26marijuana.html?ref=us
1 comment:
The relationship between the state government and the federal government has always been (and probably will always be) one of the the most important topics in political science and legal debate.
Regarding the specific issue at hand, if the federal says that they will "no longer prosecute legal users or providers", does it mean that they will not control marijuana at all? I think they will still prosecute "illegal" users.
Given that, if marijuana use in some cases such as medical is designated as legal in a state, then that state has "defined their own stance on the issue." If not, then the federal government will still prosecute the user.
For the other vacuum mentioned, "states that do not possess the means for enforcing their own standards", are we really saying that the federal government has to enforce a state law when the state fails to? Are we arguing that the federal government has to take care of anything that the state screwed up? That will be ridiculous. If the state can not enforce the law, then just abolish it and leave it to the federal government.
Post a Comment