The Tenth Amendment and federal-state relations on marijuana legalization

10th Amendment and how it relates to the states being controlled by the Federal Govt. On the legalization of pot..

Marijuana in the context of the Tenth Amendment

There is much controversy regarding the Constitution and the power it has over the people, taking into account that many individuals believe that the federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to prevent cities and states from legalizing the use of marijuana (regardless of the purpose of the substance's use). The possession of Marijuana is banned under federal law. However, when considering that the prohibition era saw alcohol banned under a Constitutional amendment, it would appear that a federal law should not be considered enough to prevent states or cities to legalize the use of marijuana. A great deal of individuals (both smokers and non-smokers) believe that the federal government is wrong in trying to force individuals to take on particular attitudes, especially considering that each person should be allowed to do whatever he or she wants with his or her body.

The illegal status of marijuana has had a particularly negative effect on the American peoples and on the country as a whole. While some people consider that it would be perfectly normal for a person to be penalized on account of breaking the law, most of these individuals have a limited understanding of the respective law and on whether or not consuming marijuana actually has a negative effect on people.

The U.S. Constitution promotes the idea that the federal government only needs to focus on the powers that are provided by the Constitution itself. These respective powers are limited and are strictly defined in order to leave no room for interpretation. In contrast, the states are expected to take on a series of powers and to be able to interpret the Constitution in order to be able to exercise their power to be free. The Tenth Amendment actually emphasizes that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

To a certain degree, it is only safe to say that marijuana in the present is no different from alcohol in 1919. If individuals grow, distribute, and consume the substance within state borders and the state's government decides that it is not a crime to do so in particular circumstances it would be wrong for Congress to override this respective decision.

Alcohol prohibition should have taught society an important lesson. However, when considering the current status of marijuana, it seems that people have learnt very little. If the substance were to be moved from a prohibition idea to one involving a regulatory control system conditions would most probably improve, both from the authorities and for individuals consuming the substance (Rahtz 97).

In addition to preventing the government from coming in possession of a significant amount of money as a result of money paid through taxes, anti-marijuana laws also encourage criminal behavior. Marijuana represents an income of $8.6 billion annually to Mexican cartels, an estimated 60% of the traffickers' total revenue." (Rahtz 97) Such actions provide cartel members with the opportunity to fund other activities such as terrorism and human trafficking. By legalizing marijuana the government would become able to divert funds away from criminals and into the country. A whole new industry would emerge as a result of marijuana being legalized and numerous jobs would thus appear.

The Supreme Court played an active role in confusing people with regard to marijuana's status in association with the federal government's power to affect it. "The Supreme Court's recent decision saying that the federal government can prosecute those using marijuana for medical purposes, even when state laws permit such use, has been seen by many as an issue of being for or against marijuana." (Sowell) This decision did not only offend marijuana users, as it also influenced Americans in general to acknowledge that this situation is basically a precedent and that the federal government can get actively involved in a series of discussions that do not concern it directly.