Was the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center raid legal?
Federal or state laws govern the United States of America (USA). The federal law applies to the whole country, governing all 50 states, while state laws apply to specific states. The state law only prevails if it gives people more rights that the federal law. The issue of legalization of marijuana in some states of America, like California, whereas the federal law prohibits the use of the same substance for any purpose leads to a supremacy clause. Part VI of the U.S. Constitution addresses the Supremacy clause that gives the federal government a winning card when a conflict between the state and federal law occurs (The Heritage Foundation 1). Therefore, the raid of Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center was constitutional and by the federal-state laws agreements. Californians voted for the legalization of medical marijuana and went ahead to start an initiative center. However, the federal government controls all state the Congress and other constitutional stakeholders before implementation must discuss government and any initiative that contradicts the federal law.
Federalism acts as a solution to conflicts between the federal and state laws. The idea allowed state government to regulate matters affecting their states while the national government regulates only those matters that individual states fail to regulate (Reisert). The legalization of marijuana cannot be a state affair since it creates opportunities for people to traffic other illicit drugs from one state to the other and eventually across nation borders. The opening of the marijuana initiative center created an opportunity for citizens from other states where growing and using marijuana is illegal to access the drug easily. The federal government's raid aimed at protecting adverse effects that would create more suffering for the Americans in the future. However, many states still doubt the importance of federalism in ending the conflict claiming that it aligns more with the federal law. However, both state and federal leaders have requested the Congress to create a uniform policy that considers both parties.
Proposed personal solution
America continues thriving as a country governed by laws that make it achieve a strong local and international identity made possible through innovations and diversity through self-governed states. However, the country experiences numerous conflicts because of differences in governing structures between the federal and state governments. However, both laws operate for the benefit of all citizens. States create laws that fit their geographical positions and environments while the federal government creates laws that try to make every American equal in all states. Legalizing medical marijuana has many benefits to victims suffering from chronic health conditions. However, both the federal and state legal bodies should agree on specific guidelines to ensure every person benefits from the law. Both the federal and state governments need to agree on an Act that deals with any future conflict but following the constitution. The established Act should limit federal rules and actions to only duties and powers provided by the federal government. A proper balance should exist between the two governing bodies (federal and state) that promote a strong cooperation where all stakeholders take part in establishing a working solution. Additionally, the president should appoint a committee of experts representing the federal and state governments with the primary role of discussing issues related to federal and state laws. Committee members should come from both Houses and follow constitutional guidelines when solving conflicts. The committee discusses the conflict considering facts from both sides and eventually establishes a standard solution that favors both the federal and the state governments. Moreover, the President should sign the agreement into law after passing through the Congress for approval.
Legalizing marijuana for medical reasons
Psychological experts argue marijuana plays a critical role in curing many psychological disorders. The use of marijuana for medical purposes continues to gain momentum as scientists establish new ways of dealing with chronic health conditions caused by drug addiction. Users know marijuana for its negative impacts and many societies, especially Christians, term it as an evil drug. An article from ProCon.org argued that the approval for the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes relies on low-quality evidence, legislative initiatives, public opinions, and individual testimonies but the evidence provided does not meet FDA standards. Additionally, the American Psychological Association warns against severe effects to the nation should it legalize marijuana for medical use. Therefore, marijuana should not be legalized for medical reasons, but scientists should look for an equivalent drug that has less external effects.
On the other hand, legalizing marijuana for medical purposes gives the society the authority to use the drug for personal purposes other than the intended meaning. A high number of people in the society accept the use of medical marijuana to cure specific psychological problems, but problems exist about the future of the society. It would be wiser to ban the use of marijuana completely and help save the future generation rather than looking for solutions to problems caused by overuse of the same drug. The American Psychological Association records a rise in the use and abuse of the marijuana in some states where the drug use is legal (Munsey 50).
Works Cited
Munsey, Christopher. “Medicine or menace? Psychologists' research can inform the growing
debate over legalizing marijuana.” American Psychological Association. 41.6 (2010): 50
ProCon.org. "Should Marijuana Be a Medical Option?" ProCon.org. 3 Mar. 2016. Web. 16 Jun.
2016.
Resisert, Joseph. “Conflicting marijuana laws make a case for finding solution in federalism.”
Centralmaine.com. Web: 16th June 2016.
The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. 2012. <
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/constitution#essay-133>. Web: 16 June 2016.
