Federal Versus State Policy Comparison on Medical Marijuana

Federal versus State Policy Comparison on Medical Marijuana

Acquiring knowledge of the specific functions of state and federal government is important to make sense of what something says or mean. State and federal government have been battling for centuries over policies, which supersede the other regardless of current state statutes. In this paper the subject to examine is Arizona's current legislation concerning medical marijuana use and the federal approach to medical marijuana use. In addition compare and contrast the differences and similarities of federal and state government as it pertains to their role in the implementation of criminal justice policy and address the aspects of policy development and implementation.

Large use of personal vice-related crimes in the United States has created sets of standards to be created Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations of 1970 (RICO) and the Drug Abuse Prevention and Crime Control act of 2010. In reading the RICO act the primary intent was to handle organized crime. Under the act crimes are declared as using revenue from a model of criminal behavior to obtain some interest in a business, which affects inter-state commerce. Here are some examples buying of or maintaining involvement in a business, conduct, participate, conspire to takeout any of the forgoing actions. A crime or infringement of RICO does not need state of mind, thoughtlessness, deliberateness, or even knowledge on the part of the accused.

However, government rule has the authority to enforce federal law regardless of state statute because of the supremacy clause in the Constitution. One example is the Norton brothers, who were arrested after multiple search warrants were served in connection with manufacturing and selling marijuana to those who held medical license. Although federal law had been violated the state certified them with license to manufacture and sell marijuana to those who had medical licenses. A misapplication of federal law within a state is the Norton brothers who followed procedures with frequently visits by the Almeda county sheriffs and paid their taxes. This is within a state.

In this case the Supremacy Clause should have been found without legal effects because the drug-related legislation is not exactly ascribed within the Constitution. The Norton brother's case could have been argued using the Tenth Amendment and prior case law involving the states rights of overruling federal involvement. In addition refer to Printz v. United States (95-1478), 521 U.S. 898 (1997) "the very principle of separate state sovereignty that such a law offends, and no comparative assessment of the various interests can overcome that fundamental defect" (para 41). With respects to drugs and vice-related legislation, differences still exist in state versus federal issues.

The federal government feels the need to have rule over certain