Resources
Don’t prosecute medical-marijuana use, Obama administration says
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/10/19/dont-prosecute-medical-marijuana-use-obama-administration-says/
U.S. Mellows on Medical Marijuana
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125595221988793895.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond
Debate grows over US ruling on marijuana
http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/10/20/debate_grows_over_us_ruling_on_marijuana/
States Pressed Into New Role on Medical Marijuana
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/us/26marijuana.html?_r=1&hp
Article II of the Constitution
http://ArticleII.org
The Tenth Amendment
http://www.constitutionbee.org/user/StudentGuide.aspx?id=804
Gonzalez v. Raich (2005)
http://www.constitutionbee.org/user/StudentGuide.aspx?id=967
Discussion Questions
- What did the Justice Department tell federal prosecutors about medical marijuana last month?
The Justice Department told federal prosecutors that they should not prosecute medical marijuana users who comply with the laws in the state where they live.
- What effect do you predict this change in policy may have on the thirteen states that currently have laws permitting medical marijuana use, as well as those five states which are considering such laws? Other states?
Individual within those states which allow medical marijuana will not have to worry about federal prosecution if they follow the marijuana use laws in their state. Individual states will be responsible for their own enforcement of those laws without the added police power of the national government. More states may consider enacting medical marijuana laws because they will know that people who comply with those laws will not be subject to federal prosecution.
- What are constitutional arguments for and against the Justice Department’s change in policy?
For: The constitutional principle of federalism, as well as the Tenth Amendment, make clear that the states and the people keep all powers not given to the national government, and regulating drugs taken for medicinal purposes within individual states is not an expressed power of the national government. Against: The Constitution requires the executive branch to enforce the laws, and marijuana is illegal under federal law. Furthermore, the Supreme Court upheld the national government’s power to enforce laws against illegal drugs within individual states as constitutional under Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce in Gonzalez v. Raich (2005)
- What is your opinion on the Justice Department’s announcement, and what is your constitutional reasoning?
Accept reasoned answers.
