Bedrock Principle Of Federalism
States have authorized and enforced laws that did not match federal laws, as is and should be the case with medical marijuana. If a state chooses to allow medicinal cannabis use, then it is law.
Federal law classifies marijuana as a dangerous drug with no medical use. San Bernardino County Sheriff Gary Penrod has said the law created conflicts and ethical issues, especially with his officers who are cross-deputized to uphold federal law.
“There is a big difference between decriminalizing marijuana and authorizing its use … in violation of federal law,” argued San Diego County senior Deputy Counsel Thomas D. Bunton.
“Congress has declared that marijuana has no medical use, so using marijuana under these circumstances is drug abuse.”
But states have long practiced authorizing and enforcing laws that do not match federal law, argued ACLU/NORML attorney Adam B. Wolf.
“The counties’ position would imply the invalidity of hundreds, if not thousands, of state statutes,” Wolf told the judges. Wolf quoted U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s comment that there has been countless times where states have not criminalized issues the same way as the federal government.
“It’s a bedrock principle of federalism” for states to be allowed to determine issues such as how to regulate marijuana, Wolf said
Doctors have declared marijuana’s medicinal use, congress has no place dictating what is and what is not “medicine” I think that is more suited for doctors and patients to decide, thank you very much.
This is going on because a few counties in California are debating certain aspects of the medical marijuana program, read more below…
San Bernardino and San Diego counties argued in court Tuesday that California’s medical marijuana plan violates federal law and the state constitution, while opposing attorneys argued the state is within its rights to regulate the substance.
The exchanges came in a crowded courtroom before a three-judge panel of the state 4th District Court of Appeal in San Diego.
The jurists took the matter under submission and have 90 days to make their ruling. Their decision can be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
Defending the state’s marijuana laws was a lawyer from the California attorney general’s office, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and a lawyer representing patients who use marijuana.
California voters in 1996 legalized the use of marijuana to treat symptoms of illnesses such as cancer and glaucoma, and chronic pain. Prop. 215 was passed by 56 percent of voters.
The two counties are not trying to overturn that initiative.
But they argue that subsequent legislation, the Medical Marijuana Program, which created a system for counties to investigate applicants, issue user cards and keep those on file, puts the counties in direct conflict with the federal Controlled Substances Act.
San Bernardino County has not issued any user cards as officials await the outcome of the lawsuit. Since January 2006, Riverside County has issued 1,000 cards to patients and their caregivers. That number includes renewals, which must be done annually.
Bottom line is this: the people voted, proposition 215 was approved - and state laws have contradicted federal laws for a long time. Medical marijuana should not be stopped because of this, states have the right to make their own laws, as it states above - this is a bedrock principle of federalism.