Chris Archuleta

Pols-1100
Federalism argument

When we think of state and federal rights in the United States, especially in the

context of the 21st century, one of the issues that always seems to find itself in the

foreground is that of the federal prohibition of Marijuana. Marijuanas legal history within

the states is one that ranges back more than a century, with several attempts

throughout the states starting in the 70s to achieve some form of decriminalization

(though most failed). However, public support for its legalization nationwide has grown

more and more prominent since the 1990s when California passed proposition 215,

which allowed for the countrys first institution of medical marijuana laws. It is clear at

this point, that the majority of Americans support legalization, with studies showing that

71 percent of americans 18-35 support (Geiger), it shows a clear dichotomy between

the view of the people and the law of the land, and ultimately an imbalance in the

federal governments power over the state governments.

To be able to move further, it is important to understand the way in which the

D.E.A. classifies drugs in the united states. Its a fairly straightforward system in which

drugs are classified essentially by contrasting the drugs detriment versus its benefit to

the user. They are listed in 5 categories, known as schedules 1-5, with Schedule 1

drugs being shown to have no known medical use while simultaneously lacking safety

to the users health and high abuse potential, schedule 5 drugs have much more benefit

to health and relative to the higher schedules have low abuse potential(DOJ). Now for a
better idea of how this plays out, some of the drugs we see in schedule 1 are things like

heroin and LSD, while schedule 5 drugs tend to be mixtures or solutions of other drugs,

sometimes with small amounts of narcotics such as cough suppressants with low

amounts of codeine(which itself is a schedule 2 drug). Now with this information, it

would be safe to assume that given what we know in 2017 about marijuanas medical

applications, it would probably fall somewhere towards the middle or lower end of the

drug schedule, definitely lower at least than benzodiazepines such as xanax and

Valium. The reality is much more bizarre, Benzodiazepines, long have been recognized

to have a fairly high potential for abuse and obvious harm to the human body and mind

when used in excess, and yet are categorized as schedule 4 drugs, whereas marijuana,

is listed as a schedule 1 drug. (DOJ)

States tend to be far more homogenous with the view of the masses than the

federal government, largely due to the fact that state policy has more direct input from

its constituents, whereas federal policy tends to be more politically and bureaucratically

driven. Because of this, especially when public opinion begins to change on certain

issues, the first battlegrounds for change are on the state level. This is not to say that

the question isnt raised on the national level, but often times progressive views tend to

manifest and gain traction more quickly on the state level. Take gay marriage for

example, it wasnt until more than half of the states in the country already had afforded

marriage rights to same sex couples that the federal courts declared in 2015 that the

right was guaranteed by the constitution(procon 2). The federal government is always
behind in adapting to the newer ideas of its people, but this is to be expected. This

slight imbalance in power, leaning slightly more towards the federal government, is

exactly what was intended by the constitution, to fix the problems of the confederate

government we had originally held, by replacing them with federalist principles.

Its hardly surprising, given this imbalance in power, that we see such a

divergence between the peoples view on marijuana (and by extension the states due to

their greater homogeneity with the population) and the federal governments. Older

ideas hold more firmly on a national scale, while on the state level newer ideas tend to

progress more quickly. In this sense, its not entirely accurate to comment on the effect

marijuanas road to legalization has had on our countrys balance of power, but rather

the converse. It seems obvious how the strength of the federal government can so

impede progress in the nation, but it is the simple fact that they have that power that

allows them to (when it really matters) push decisive change and push fringe states

towards change as well. This issue of legalization in fact hasnt affected the balance of

power between state and federal government, rather the path it is taking is the direct

consequence of the way our government was formed. Democracy has always been

slow, and by allowing this balance in power, as our founding fathers intended, we hold

true to the most effective democratic government the world has ever known, and that

cannot be taken lightly.

 Works Cited

"Controlled Substance Schedules." Resources - Controlled Substance Schedules.

Department of Justice, n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2017.

<https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/>.

Geiger, Abigail. "Support for Marijuana Legalization Continues to Rise." Pew Research

Center. N.p., 12 Oct. 2016. Web. 03 Mar. 2017.

<http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/12/support-for-marijuana-legalizati

on-continues-to-rise/>.

"60 Peer-Reviewed Studies on Medical Marijuana - Medical Marijuana - ProCon.org."

Should Marijuana Be a Medical Option? Procon.org, n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2017.

<http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000884>

(Pro con 2)"State-by-State History of Banning and Legalizing Gay Marriage, 1994-2015

- Gay Marriage - ProCon.org." Should Gay Marriage Be Legal? Procon., n.d. Web.

05 Mar. 2017.

<http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857>.