The discussion on the legalization of marijuana has over the last few decades attracted a lot of debate. These discussions span from all spheres of life including political, social, judicial and economic. The United States congress classified marijuana as a schedule 1 drug. This implies that the drug has the potential of being abused and of creating dependency. It also implies that the drug has no proved medical use or value. However, over time marijuana has been shown to be used for pain relieve in cancer patients. Further, the use of recreational marijuana has increased over the past few years (Friedersdrof, 2018) . The states which have enacted these laws have largely relied on the Tenth Amendment. The interpretation of the Tenth Amendment has over time generated conflict between federal state officers and individual State officers. The Tenth Amendment implies that a state can enact a law that is not in the United States Constitution and which is not prohibited to the State. This is the motivation behind the enactment of laws allowing the use of marijuana in various states (Brilmayer, 2017) .
The states that have passed the law on legalizing marijuana are about 29. These states view this as a recognition of individual rights and an appreciation of human freedom. The 29 states have legalized marijuana as a medicinal drug. Some other eight have legalized it as a recreational drug. California become the first state to legalize medicinal marijuana in 1996. Colorado on the other hand legalized recreational marijuana in 2012. This was done despite the federal laws prohibiting the same. According to Gallup, the use of marijuana and its legalization is an idea whose time has come. Gallup notes that 64% support it legalization (Friedersdrof, 2018) . The United States Congress has however refused to allow various states to decide on what is best for their people. The same is replicated by the sentiments from the Attorney General. At one point, Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General issued a directive to federal prosecutors to discharge their duties in the prosecution of Marijuana as they deem fit. This was to be done regardless of whether it violated the local or state laws (Friedersdrof, 2018) .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Many of the states have eased their laws on marijuana. Further, these states have also made efforts to cooperate with the growers and processors of marijuana. The motivation behind this is that these states consider the issue of growing or using marijuana as a state issue and not a federal one. According to Natelson (2018), the founders of the constitution aimed at ensuring that liberty was protected. This protection would be a higher priority compared to regulation. This, he notes was the motivation behind the recognition that manufacturing authority was the premise of individual state.
The constitution grants Congress Commerce power. This allows congress to control and regulate commercial activities in the various states. It also allows congress to enact laws that will help it in the regulation of interstate commerce. This seems to have been the motivation in the determination of the Gonzales’s case by the supreme court in 2005. This ruling implored the supremacy of the constitution. According to the supreme court, congress can use the commerce power. This implies that congress has the power to ban the use of marijuana regardless of whether it is permitted by the individual state or not. The supreme court in this case found out that the growth and use of marijuana were economic activities and hence were subject to congressional regulation. In addition, the use of marijuana was found to have what was referred to as “substantial effects” on commercial activities among states. This added to the need of congressional regulation (Brilmayer, 2017) . According to Natelson (2018), congress has no jurisdiction over agriculture. As such, he considers the growing of marijuana as an agricultural activity implying that it should be purely a state issue and not a federal one. However, any trade between states can be regulated by congress under the powers given to it by the Commercial Power Clause.
The above scenario on Gonzales’s case and the interpretation of the supreme court seems to invoke the supremacy clause of the constitution. According to the clause, any activity deemed to illegal by the federal laws is illegal even in the states. The federal law is supreme. Marijuana is considered illegal by federal law and therefore becomes illegal across the United States. All states and officials are thus bound by the law. As such any law that is deemed to be conflicting with the federal law is null and void. Congress can therefore dictate what should be followed in this case. This could be the motivation behind Attorney General’s directive to federal officials determining cases related to marijuana. The utilization of the supremacy clause implies that if the laws passed by independent states is challenged in court, the federal laws supersedes the local laws (Brilmayer, 2017) .
The issue of conflict on the legalization of marijuana requires an elaboration of the Tenth Amendment. The founding fathers of United States envisioned a nation governed by human liberty. The constitution was written to further individual rights. Marijuana use and trade has over time gained the approval of many American citizens. This is a choice many have made (Brilmayer, 2017) . Further, marijuana has found to have medicinal value amongst cancer patients. Therefore, denying them the chance to use it for pain relieve is an abuse of human rights. As such, there is the need to also revise the classification of marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug. This will create a room for a discussion in congress on how marijuana use can be enacted as a federal law. Ultimately, this will reduce the already existing conflict (Brilmayer, 2017) .
References
Brilmayer, L. (2017). A General Theory of Preemption: With Comments. Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository .
Friedersdrof, C. (2018). The superior Morality of a States Rights Approach to Marijuana. The Atlantic .
NATELSON, R. (2017). Who can control marijuana? The Constitution says it's the states. The Hill .
