If you were following U.S. election effect as they rolled in Nov. 2012 , chances are you saw some coverage about Colorado and Washington United States Department of State both legalizing recreational usance ofmarijuana . jest about the munchies aside , the laws in Colorado and Washington are groundbreaking because they mark the first country to fully legalize the drug , not just for medical purposes , but for general exercise .
Likemedical marijuanalaws , these novel state laws clash with U.S. federal law , which outlaws marijuana as a ascertain substance [ source : White House ] .
province laws only regularize the citizens within a particular state , but federal laws practice to all U.S. citizens . When state and federal law clash , consider of the federal law as the trump card . In theory , a State Department law that goes against Union constabulary is null and null , but in drill , there ’s a bit more of a grey area . What it really comes down to is enforcement .
If a state defies federal jurisprudence , but the federal government does n’t enforce its jurisprudence in that body politic , is Union law of nature really the trump card card ?
Because marijuana is a hold substance , enforcement of the Union laws proscribe it fall to theU.S. Drug Enforcement Administration ( DEA ) , and so far the DEA has not take any action in Colorado or in Washington [ source : Smith ] . correctly now , that part of our nation ’s drug policy seems to be in limbo , and until the Union governing decides how to handle marijuana legalization , it ’s unclear how things will take on out in Colorado and Washington .
Marijuana legalisation is n’t the first area where a Department of State has passed legislation that does n’t mesh with a federal constabulary , and examining how those situations have played out might just give a short bit of insight into how the federal government might handle Colorado and Washington ’s marijuana legitimation .
So , what really happens when Department of State and federal laws collide ? permit ’s take a closer looking at at what the law says about these types of situation and some of those past instance where state and Union laws have contradicted each other .
The Doctrine of Pre-emption and The Supremacy Clause
The practice of law that go for to situation where State Department and Union natural law disagree is called thesupremacy article , which is part of article VI of theConstitution[source : FindLaw ] . The supremacy cause hold in what ’s known as thedoctrine of pre - emption , which suppose that the federal authorities win in the guinea pig of conflict legislation . Basically , if a federal and state police force contradict , then when you ’re in the state you may follow the United States Department of State law , but the fed can decide to break you .
The operative term here , though , is " can . "
Arizona’simmigrationlaw is a slap-up exercise of the federal government activity fully enforcing the supremacy article . When Arizona passed a very exacting in-migration law , the federal Justice Department sued them to overturn it under the supremacy article . A spokesman from theObamaadministration stated that the reason it conk after Arizona is that the state legal philosophy had international logical implication , especially in Mexico and the rest of Latin America . Proponents of the Arizona law said that the state was just impose federal law , since the feds would not do it and illegal immigrant were be Arizona a great deal of money . The case hold up all the direction to theU.S. Supreme Court , where the Court overturned parts of the practice of law and upheld others [ author : Cohen ] . Nevertheless , functionary at the Department of Homeland Security say due to limited resources , it was not likely to step into illegal immigrant causa except high precedence ones like those involve felonies [ sources : Archibold , Cohen ] .
Historically , the federal government has not check down every undivided time a state and Union law contradict . If state jurisprudence contradict Union law but it ’s not something that affects national security or international relations , the fed might not intervene . In Nevada , sure counties have legitimatize prostitution , which also violate federal law , but the federal governance has so far not enforce the school of thought of pre - emption in Nevada . harlotry is illegal according to U.S. Union law , but under Nevada state law , counties with a population of less than 700,000 people can legally have legal whorehouse [ reference : Tan ] . Unlike in Arizona , the Union administration has not action the state to shut down prostitution , and unlike California ’s aesculapian marijuana dispensary , the fed has not raid any brothels in the state . You could argue that prostitution is also an international takings , sincehuman traffickingis for sure a problem that traverse country and national borders , but the Union government has not take any action in Nevada .
Probably the best litmus test test for how the Union government will handle marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington is to look at how it ’s manage decriminalise aesculapian marihuana in other states .
When State and Federal Laws Collide: Marijuana Legalization
As we saw before , the Union government can enforce the doctrine of pre - emption , but it does n’t exercise its full power in every case . In California , where medical marijuana is legal , the federal government has taken a different mainsheet .
California legitimise aesculapian marihuana in 2003 , and the state ’s marijuana facilities have had a rocky relationship with the federal government activity , peculiarly begin in the fall of 2011 [ sources : NORML , Rondoni ] . Dispensaries in California have been open to federal raids , though in most cases there have n’t been any stop – or else , the government capture and destroys the business possessor ’s plant and sometimes shuts the businesses down completely [ beginning : Ifill ] .
In an interesting twist , the city of Oakland , Calif. sued the Union government for trying to shut down the largest aesculapian marijuana facility in the country ( which happens to be establish in Oakland ) [ source : Romney ] . This slip is still unresolved , but if Oakland win , it could set a precedent protect California ’s medical marijuana businesses from Union raids [ source : Rondoni ] .
In Colorado , dispensaries and other medical Cannabis sativa business have been subject to raids and audit convey under Union natural law [ source : Chun ] .
If the federal government ’s late treatment of medical marijuana adeptness is any indication , Colorado ’s and Washington ’s marijuana stage business can expect some sound problem . When it comes to full - on marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington , the DEA is n’t trusted what it ’s going to do yet . Both unexampled law will be issue by other 2013 and both states have enquire the U.S. Dept . of Justice for guidance where the state Torah conflict with federal drug law [ author : Associated Press ] . In Dec. 2012 , President Barack Obama stated that the Union government wo n’t go after recreational marijuana users in these states due to special resource . But the Dept . of Justice is waiting to see what ordinance the two states take on for enforce the voting initiatives before taking any natural process [ source : Yost ] .
One braggy difference between medical marijuana and outright legitimation is that there ’s more of an opportunity for big business to get involved . There are hearsay that boastful tobacco companies like Philip Morris have already kidnap up storage warehouse quad in Colorado ( though the company denies it ) [ generator : Dokoupil ] . This would n’t be the first time that Philip Morris taste to get in on the mountain byplay . Back in 1993 , France was considering legalization , and the company reserved a trademark for the brand name " Marley " [ source : NPR ] . If boastful business back marijuana legalization , it could be potentially game - change , since unlike small - scale growers and producers , a company like Philip Morris has the money and lobbying power to influence pol on a Union level .
Lots More Information
This was a fascinating subject to research ! I have to take that in the eccentric of Colorado and Washington legalizing marijuana , I ’m rooting for the states . Marijuana ban has always struck me as a waste of law enforcement ’s clock time and resources . Instead of busting college kids for smoking a joint , police could be out fighting violent offence , and states could earn some much - needed redundant tax revenue . The federal government could even task this multi - billion dollar industry , which makes a lot of sense at a sentence that we are so disturbed about the shortage . Instead of spending money , we could be get to money . It just feel like terminate marijuana prohibition could be a win - win , and I ’m hop that Washington and Colorado will get a chance to march that .
