Introduction
The issue of power division in America has been significant for over two centuries. Its importance is not decreased now. American federalism is a well-known phenomenon. However, the ways of implementing it seem to be rather controversial. The current issue of marijuana legalization has aggravated contradictions between federal and local governments and has become a thing that challenges American federalism to prove its ability to perform according to its doctrines.
Main text
James Madison (1788) pointed out the fact that state and federal governments are not the same, they are different trustees with particular purposes, which should not coincide. It should be noted that American federalism has undergone important changes since the twenty-first century. Before that time the division of power was clearly described in the Constitution. A new century brought with it new activities and notions. As a result, both federal and state governments became involved in it without precise division of their responsibilities (Peters, 2007).
Marijuana legalization is considered to be one of the most complex and pressing issues in modern American federalism. The main point of the issue is that the usage of marijuana (even for recreational purposes) is strictly prohibited by the federal government. However, states’ Congresses have the right to legalize the usage of marijuana. Thus, a kind of paradox appears (Schwartz, 2013).
President Richard Nixon started his anti-drugs campaign by legitimating the Controlled Substances Act in 1970, which was aimed at total fighting drug abuse. No problems arose till 1996. Some scientists agree that the crisis originated because of the old and illogical context of the Controlled Substances Act. Marijuana is listed in Schedule I in the CSA. According to this Schedule, marijuana is given the same status as heroin or LSD, which are regarded as the most dangerous drugs in the world. It is worthwhile mentioning that methamphetamine and cocaine are listed in Schedule II, and that makes CSA an illogical and old-fashioned document. The antiquity of the law can be also proved by the fact that the spelling “marihuana” is still used there (Firestone, 2014).
Such a situation has led to the violation or even neglect of federal laws by state governments. Washington and Colorado’s states were the first to conduct this. Residents voted for the legalization of marijuana for recreational usage. Still, carrying pot is illegal according to federal laws, and some people have been arrested because of it.
It is expected that the federal government will take all of this into consideration. State governments should be regarded as laboratories of democracy. Logically, giving residents more authority to deal with their own communities’ problems should lead to the enhancement of democracy. However, the results may not be successful. The reality of local politics exemplifies this (Nivola, 2005).
In 2014 the White House made a statement that marijuana legalization should be a states’ rights issue. This statement was called a watershed moment in American policies implementation. It is of great significance that the government takes into consideration the fact that Americans are ready for marijuana law reform (DeBonis, 2014). Thus, one may conclude that the policy under consideration is going to become a part of state governments’ competence.
Conclusion
I agree that marijuana legalization is an extremely controversial issue. In my opinion, the federal government should have made all necessary amendments to the Controlled Substances Act. The next thing to do is to clearly define the line between federal and state governments’ competence. I find these two reasons the most important during the crisis. If this would be not enough, the federal government must give all necessary rights to the states, otherwise, it would contradict the basis of American federalism.
References
DeBonis, M. (2014). White House: Marijuana is an issue of ‘States’ rights’. The Washington Post. Web.
Firestone, D. (2014). Let States Decide on Marijuana. The New York Times. Web.
Madison. J. (1788). The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared. Federalist, 46. Web.
Nivola P. S. (2005). Why Federalism Matters. Brookings. Web.
Peters, B. G. (2007). American Public Policy: Promise and Performance. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Schwartz, D. S. (2013). High Federalism Marijuana Legalization and Limits of Federal Power to Regulate States. Cardozo Law Review, 35(567), 567-641. Web.