Should Marijuana be Legalized on the Federal Government Level?

Abstract

Weed is ending up progressively mainstream and acknowledged inside our general public; to such an extent that specific states have sanctioned it for medicinal or recreational use, in spite of weed staying unlawful with respect to the government. This has lead, and will keep on leading, to entangled and unverifiable duty situations for the organizations that deliver and offer weed. Numerous issues originate from the national government being not able perceive or connect with organizations that arrangement with marijuana. This influences these generally genuine organizations by prohibiting the utilization of governmentally guaranteed banks and additionally taking without end the capacity to look for bureaucratic chapter 11 insurance. A powerlessness to work as a typical business may lead weed organizations to investigate other assessment arranging arrangements, for example, sorting out as a social welfare association. Even from a pessimistic standpoint, they might be driven back underground. Moreover, it might be professionally unsafe for CPAs to perform administrations to these organizations because of a paranoid fear of damaging moral guidelines. These littler issues definitely end up one major issue, featuring the power battle among state and governments. Should the government have the capacity to settle on these choices for the majority of the states or should each state and every district of each state be permitted to direct marijuana all alone? At the core of this issue is its opportunity delicate nature. As potential government control changes, the eventual fate of marijuana organizations and their partners is unreasonably misty. Keeping in mind the end goal to take care of these issues, the government has three options; each with their own particular advantages and expenses. They can authorize pot at a government level, totally prohibit weed and start upholding laws against known state dispensaries, or they can change certain 3 zones of the expense codes and other select laws to offer clear bearings for organizations and confirmations of constrained obligation to those with whom they work.

Introduction

Cannabis, otherwise called marijuana among different names, is a psychoactive medication from the Cannabis plant utilized for restorative or recreational purposes. The fundamental psychoactive piece of cannabis is tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), one of 483 known mixes in the plant, including something like 65 different cannabinoids. Cannabis can be utilized by smoking, vaporizing, inside sustenance, or as a concentrate.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

A standout amongst the most famous and fizzled social trial of the twentieth century was restriction, which changed a huge number of common nationals into criminal uprightness of prohibiting the utilization of liquor. Forbiddance additionally made another criminal class that was inseparably engaged with the produce and dispersion of this in the past legitimate substance. A similar thing is occurring on the planet today, wherein a huge number of standard subjects are regarded culprits since they appreciate smoking cannabis and many are detained accordingly. This paper acknowledges significant associate checked on and academic writing to recognize the controlling components engaged with the present enactment against pot and what a few states and different nations have done as of late with an end goal to decimalize its utilization.

Audit and Discussion of cannabis

Following the liberal strides of Colorado and Washington, Alaska, Oregon and the District of Columbia passed poll activities to authorize cannabis this month. Florida's therapeutic marijuana law bombed, yet simply because as a protected correction it required 60% backings; 58% voted for it.

In 2016, another five to 10 states will probably consider authorization potentially Arizona, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. It's not astonishing. Sentiment surveys demonstrate that weed legitimization currently directions lion's share bolster the nation over.

Do these improvements imply that full authorization is unavoidable?

• Not really, but rather one would trust so. Cannabis authorization is an approach easy decision. Any general public that claims to esteem freedom should leave grown-ups allowed to expend pot.
• Also, the proof from states and nations that have decriminalized or medicalized marijuana recommends that strategy assumes a humble job in restricting use. And keeping in mind that weed can hurt the client or others when expended improperly, the same applies to numerous legitimate products, for example, liquor, tobacco, intemperate eating or driving an auto.
• Ongoing proof from Colorado affirms that pot's lawful status has negligible effect on pot utilize or the damages supposedly caused by utilize. Since commercialization of medicinal pot in 2009, and since legitimization in 2012, weed utilize, wrongdoing, auto collisions, instruction and wellbeing results have all taken after their previous patterns as opposed to expanding or diminishing after approach changed.
• The solid cases made by authorization commentators are not borne out in the information. In like manner, some solid cases by sanctioning promoters - e.g., that pot tourism would be a noteworthy blast to the economy - have additionally not appeared.
• The primary effect of Colorado's sanctioning has been that cannabis clients would now be able to buy and use with less stress over brutal legitimate repercussions.
• However in spite of the convincing case for sanctioning and advancement toward authorization at the state level, extreme achievement isn't guaranteed.
• Government law still restricts marijuana, and existing statute (Gonzales v. Raich 2005) holds that government law trumps state law with regards to weed forbiddance. Up until this point, the central government has for the most part adopted a hands-off strategy to state medicalizations and sanctions, yet in January 2017, the nation will have another president. That individual could arrange the lawyer general to implement government forbiddance paying little mind to state law.

Regardless of whether that will happen is difficult to gauge.

On the off chance that more states sanction weed and popular supposition proceeds with its help, Washington may waver to push back. In any case, government forbiddance makes issues regardless of whether requirement is ostensible: Marijuana business can't without much of a stretch utilize standard budgetary establishments and exchanges advancements, for example, charge cards; doctors may at present falter to recommend pot; and medicinal specialists will even now confront trouble in considering weed.

To understand the maximum capacity of sanctioning, subsequently, government law must change. The best methodology is to expel cannabis from the rundown of medications directed by the Controlled Substances Act, the government law that administers forbiddance.

Standard administrative and duty approaches would in any case apply to authorized pot, and states would likely receive cannabis particular directions like those for liquor. State and central governments may likewise force 'sin charges,' with respect to liquor. Be that as it may, some way or another weed would be simply one more product, as it was before the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. A more wary methodology would have Congress reschedule weed under the CSA.

As of now, weed is in Schedule I, which is held for medications, for example, heroin and LSD that, as indicated by the CSA, have 'a high potential for manhandle no at present acknowledged therapeutic use in treatment in the United States an absence of acknowledged wellbeing for utilize.' Hardly anybody trusts these conditions apply to marijuana.

On the off chance that marijuana were in Schedule II, which states it as 'a high potential for mishandle as of now acknowledged medicinal use in treatment in the United States,' specialists could lawfully endorse it under government law, similarly as with other Schedule II medications, for example, cocaine, methadone and morphine.

Given the expansive scope of conditions for which marijuana might be helpful, including muscle fits caused by different sclerosis, queasiness from tumor chemotherapy, poor craving and weight reduction caused by ceaseless sickness, for example, HIV, interminable agony, push, seizure issue and Crohn's malady, specialists would have wide rule to recommend, making cannabis everything except legitimate as happens under the broadest state restorative weed laws, for example, California and Colorado.

Medicinal science would likewise confront less administrative obstacles to marijuana investigate. This 'medicalization' approach, while maybe politically more doable than full sanctioning, has genuine disadvantages.

Government experts, for example, the Drug Enforcement Administration could meddle with weed endorsing - as in some cases happens with sedative recommending. Saddling medicinal weed might be harder than burdening recreational cannabis. Furthermore, the medicinal methodology hazards a charge of affectation, since it is secondary passage legitimization. In any case, medicalization is still superior to anything full preclusion, since it takes out the bootleg market.

For a long time, the United States has banned pot, with shocking repercussions and unintended outcomes. The general population and their state governments are on track to amend this awful arrangement. Hopefully Congress makes up for lost time.

Recommendations to Solve the Conflict among State and Federal Marijuana Laws

In spite of the fact that it is getting to be clearer that the present government pot laws are not manageable in any event not without an emotional inversion obviously at the state level the exchange about how to change them ought to be done is still in its outset. To date, most recommendations to change government cannabis law have originated from state pot legitimization supporters and have concentrated for the most part on limiting or settling the current state administrative clash. They fall into around four classes:

• Keeping the Department of Justice from going through cash to meddle with state cannabis laws;
• Giving an agreed barrier in light of consistence with state weed laws;
• Giving states a chance to quit government weed forbiddance; and
• Finishing the bureaucratic restriction on pot and supplanting it with some kind of administrative structure. To start comprehend the diverse choices for government.

Federal Marijuana Regulation

Last but not least, Congress could rethink federal marijuana prohibition and enact its own set of marijuana regulations. The major federal law relevant to marijuana is the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, which repealed all prior federal legislation and reduced federal penalties for possession and sale. Although marijuana possession and sale are still prohibited, possession has been reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor offense; the maximum penalty for a first offense is $5,000 and one year's imprisonment.

Or it could get rid of federal marijuana prohibition altogether, leaving states that want to ban the drug to do so on their own. The only comprehensive proposal of this sort has come from Congressman Jared Polis with his Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act. The Uniform Controlled Substance Act of 1970, drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, was designed to make state laws more compatible with the new federal law. Like the federal act, the Uniform Act reclassified marijuana as a hallucinogen rather than a narcotic and reduced the penalty for possession from the felony to the misdemeanor level; a majority of the states have adopted the Uniform Act.

Eleven states have withdrawn the criminal sanction from possession for personal use. In these states, arrest has been replaced with a traffic-ticket type of citation, and a small fine is the sole allowable penalty. Federal prohibition of small-scale possession is virtually unenforced. At the March 1977 House of Representatives hearings on decriminalization, the chief of the criminal division of the Department of Justice testified that the federal government no longer effectively does not prosecute the use of marijuana, “nor do we, under any conceivable way, in the Federal Government have the resources to do so”.

As discussed below, the federal government could use its regulations to try to limit the size of marijuana businesses to combat commercialization or to very strictly police sales to minors itself. For purposes of putting state and federal marijuana laws on the same page, however, most of these details are unlikely to matter much. The variety of choices within each of the broad policy options suggests that none can be characterized in a monolithic way. Some regulatory systems could be so stringent as to have results similar to prohibitory laws: e.g., a regulatory system that raised the price drastically above what the illegal market charges.

Similarly, lack of enforcement could strongly reduce the impact of a prohibitory option. As we have already noted, this latter effect has already occurred in some jurisdictions in which the law provides for complete prohibition but users are not in fact prosecuted.

Pros

• Marijuana will ease the pain and suffering of a cancer patient.
• Marijuana is less harmful than chemotherapy or other drugs that are currently use in cancer treatment.
• Tens of millions of Americans would not be labeled criminals because of their current life style.
• Enormous amount of federal, state and local taxes could be generated from legal sale of marijuana that could be readily used for education, medical research to find a cure for cancers, the space program and health care for poor and elderly and on and on.
• Quality of product would improve.
• Sales could be regulated like current liquor sales. In fact, infrastructure already exists for the regulation of the distribution and taxation of marijuana through liquor/package stores across the country.
• Other countries have decriminalized marijuana with no discernable adverse effects.
• Less marijuana dealing related crime.

Cons

• Legalization of marijuana might allow easier access for drug users to legally feed their habit.
• Children may gain access to marijuana if adult keep it in the home.
• Marijuana is a “gateway” drug that leads to the use of alcohol and harder drugs, such as cocaine, crystal meth, heroin, PCP, crack, etc.
• Potential for more traffic accidents.
• Known health risks associated with smoking anything.
• The already alarming incidents of obesity may increase.
• Increase joblessness.
• More cash-strapped Americans spending what little money they have on a new unhealthy habit.

Conclusion

Regardless of whether a person is for or against legalization, there is a clearly a developing issue regarding marijuana use in the U.S. This is a problem that can no longer be ignored by law enforcement agencies, Congress, and the IRS. Whether or not marijuana becomes legal federally is not for this paper to decide. This paper has given its reader the ability to make an informed decision on the issues of taxation and general business practices. This paper provides some facts from all perspectives on the issue, but does not propose making any final developments. These developments will ultimately come from new cases, time, change in the federal laws, including the I.R.C. As the future remains unknown, these decisions and developments are unknown in the present.

Federal marijuana law may not be imminent, it is almost certainly inevitable. Almost half of the states allow for the medical use of marijuana, and four states have passed laws to legalize the drug entirely. Due to resource constraints, the federal government has proven itself unable to effectively block these state laws by enforcing its own prohibition. As a result, in states that have legalized the drug, federal marijuana prohibition continues in name only. Unless states suddenly reverse course and begin recriminalizing marijuana or the Supreme Court finds that state legalization laws are preempted by the Controlled Substances Act both exceedingly unlikely events federal marijuana prohibition’s days are numbered. This Article compares different avenues for reforming federal marijuana laws, with the goal of highlighting some of the considerations that might drive the debate in the coming years. To date, efforts to reconcile federal marijuana law with state reforms have focused mostly on relatively narrow proposals, like forbidding the DOJ from spending money to interfere with state marijuana laws or establishing a limited affirmative defense to federal marijuana prosecutions based on compliance with state law. At first glance, these proposals might seem most likely to be palatable to legalization opponents since they would do the least cosmetic damage to existing law. But more far-reaching reforms, like a state waiver system or federal marijuana regulation, could actually give the federal government more control in addressing prohibitionists’ primary concern: marijuana commercialization. Meanwhile, legalization supporters will be less likely to settle for half-measures when it comes to federal marijuana reform as their political strength continues to rise. While legalization opponents may understandably be hesitant to concede ground on scaling back federal prohibition, if they wait too long, they may find themselves on the sidelines, with the content of federal marijuana reforms left almost entirely in the hands of legalization proponents, much like the state legalization laws themselves.

References

1. Christopher Ingraham, Colorado Marijuana Revenues Hit a New High, Wash. Post Wonkblog (Oct. 14, 2014), http://www.washington post.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/14/colorado-marijuana-revenueshit-a-new-high/ (reporting that approximately $34.1 million worth of recreational marijuana was sold in Colorado in August 2014).
2. Mikos, supra note 46, at 1463–67 (arguing that the federal government’s limited law enforcement resources mean that it cannot arrest and prosecute more than a small fraction of marijuana offenders).
3. Kreit, supra note 47, at 569–75 (arguing that federal enforcement made it more difficult for states to effectively regulate and control medical marijuana).
4. See, e.g., Beek v. City of Wyo., 495 Mich. 1 (2014) (finding that Michigan’s medical marijuana was not preempted by federal law); Robert A. Mikos, Preemption Under the Controlled Substances Act, 16 J. Health Care L. & Pol’y 5, 37 (2013) (“[T]he CSA, properly understood, preempts only a handful of the [marijuana] laws now being promulgated throughout the states.”).
5. Kleiman, supra note 79, at 8 (“When states exercise their constitutional prerogative to replace their own prohibitions with systems of regulation and taxation (clearly preferable, in terms of the purposes of the CSA and the international treaties, to the outright repeal of all cannabis laws which is the states’ undoubted right), then the federal government would be well advised to cooperate with the inevitable and attempt to manage, rather than trying to squelch, the resulting somewhat paradoxical situation of state-licensed and state-taxed violations of federal law.”).
6. E.g., Chemerinsky et al., supra note 19, at 114 (“Congress does not yet appear inclined to completely end or even to significantly curtail federal prohibition of marijuana.”).
7. Kleiman, supra note 79, at 6.
8. See Wing, supra note 56 (“Out of 50 governors and 100 U.S. Senators only one has announced support for full legalization of marijuana.”).
9. See, e.g., Alex Kreit, The Federal Response to State Marijuana Legalization: Room for Compromise?, 91 Or. L. Rev. 1029, 1031–32 (2013) (discussing the argument that legalization marijuana would result in a large commercial marijuana industry).
10. Kevin A. Sabet, A New Direction? Yes. Legalization? No. Drawing on Evidence to Determine Where to Go in Drug Policy, 91 Or. L. Rev. 1153, 1173–74 (2013).
11. Kevin A. Sabet, Op-Ed., Marijuana Is Now Big Business, N.Y. Times: Room for Debate (Nov. 10, 2014, 1:45 PM), http://www.nytimes.com /roomfordebate/2014/06/05/did-colorado-go-too-far-with-pot/marijuana -is-now-big-business.
12. Sabet, supra note 96, at 1156–57.
13. Mikos, supra note 46, at 1463–67 (arguing that the federal government’s limited law enforcement resources mean that it cannot arrest and prosecute more than a small fraction of marijuana offenders).
14. Kreit, supra note 47, at 569–75 (arguing that federal enforcement made it more difficult for states to effectively regulate and control medical marijuana).
15. See, e.g., Beek v. City of Wyo., 495 Mich. 1 (2014) (finding that Michigan’s medical marijuana was not preempted by federal law); Robert A. Mikos, Preemption Under the Controlled Substances Act, 16 J. Health Care L. & Pol’y 5, 37 (2013) (“[T]he CSA, properly understood, preempts only a handful of the [marijuana] laws now being promulgated throughout the states.”).