Introduction
The legality of consuming marijuana has been subject to debate for many years in several states worldwide. The general terms ‘legality to use cannabis’ refers to the allowed use, consumption, trade, cultivation and transfer of marijuana. Many nations in the 20th century took steps and legislation to ban the use drug however some ten states have softened the stand on its use based on medical reasons. Other states are said to be considering allowing the use of marijuana for medical reasons such as Israel and the Czech Republic . While the United States Federal law considers the drug as high potential drug for abuse, some medical experts argue that cannabis does well in suppressing the symptoms associated to cancer and AIDS.
Proposition 215 was first introduced by the marijuana activist and one of the authors, Dennis Peron after witnessing his lover fight AIDS symptoms using marijuana. He faced so much resistance from the Federal Government of the then President Bill Clinton and thus turned to the electorate of California to make it a state law. He did this by forming the movement called ‘Californians for Compassionate Use’ getting the necessary number of signatures to qualify the Proposition for Vote . The vote was held and the Proposition passed with about 55.6% of the total cast vote. This result caused a stir in North America leading to other several laws on the use of marijuana with Canada having its own law.
McCollum (2001) illustrates that the proposition had three main provisions. The first provision in the proposition was that patients and caregiver would be exempt from any criminal law regarding prescribed use of medical marijuana. The second provision was that, medical experts and physicians who would recommend the use of marijuana be allowed to provide such marijuana without being criminalized. The final proposal provided that the steps to sympathetically allow the use of marijuana should not be abused and thus results in endangering activities towards others.
The new legislation was implemented in part in the state. Some counties such as San Bernardino and San Diego were reluctant in executing the new law since a majority of the populace in these counties did not vote for it (Boehmke, 2005). However, these counties were categorically and with immediate intent directed by the California Supreme Court to see through the implementation of the law.
This new law was source of conflict with the nations’ laws. Boehmke (2005) asserts that even though proposition 215 was passed by a majority, the law was not superior to Federal Laws which stipulates that the use of marijuana is illegal and criminal. The federal Supreme Court has made this position very clear in its rulings. In the case of United States v Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative heard in 2001, the court held that state laws would not be used as defense should it contravene any federal laws and that federal laws were superior to any state law. In a separate case of Gonzales v. Raich in 2005, the court held that the federal government had the legal right to ban the use of marijuana in any state .
The social aspect of legalizing marijuana is debatable and considered not to be morally and socially right. Marijuana is the dried blossom of cannabis sativa plants and the most common method of use is by smoking just like tobacco. This might lead to lung-related infections just like those associated with cigarette smoking. Furthermore, marijuana tends to make people crazy and psychotic leading to much violence and crimes. In some cases it also makes people lazy and may be the prelude to other forms drug addiction. Thus the proposition to legalize the marijuana faces a critical social and moral hurdle .
Conclusion
In conclusion, medical terms might assert that it is true that marijuana may alleviate the suffering of the ill, but the legal and social shortcomings associated with the drug makes legalizing it a possible disaster. Governments have been looking for ways to legalize the drug use, control and care for medical use. Until such a balance is found, it will be difficult to uphold the moral aspects of a society while at the same time make drug consumption a legal practice.
References
Boehmke, F. J. (2000). Beyond the ballot: the influence of direct democracy on interest group behavior. California Institute of Technology.
Boehmke, F. J. (2005). The indirect effect of direct legislation: how institutions shape interest group systems. Ohio State University Press.
Lawrence, D. G. (2009). California: The Politics of Diversity. Cengage Learning.
McCollum, B. (2001). Medical Marijuana Referenda Movement in America: Congressional Hearing. DIANE Publishing.
Tolbert, C. J., & Smith, D. A. (2004). Educated by initiative: the effects of direct democracy on citizens and political organizations in the American states. University of Michigan Press.
