

The legality of marijuana is an ongoing controversy in the United States.  Imagine working in a legal marijuana business in a Colorado and suddenly the DEA busts down your doors, puts you in hand cuffs, reads you your Miranda rights, and says that you are being prosecuted for a federal crime.  This is happening because many states have made marijuana legal both medicinally and recreationally while it remains illegal under federal law.  By making marijuana legal, many states were hoping to prove to the federal government that by regulating the drug in a very similar manor to alcohol for recreational use and as a prescription medicine for medicinal use that it would help stop the unjust war on drugs and created a safer environment for people of all ages.  This can be seen firsthand in Colorado when, "Crime is down, job growth is up, and robust sales have yielded more than [seventeen] million in tax revenue for the state" (Altman 1).  All of these benefit society in a very positive way.  Contradictory to these many benefits, marijuana still being illegal federally has created a multitude of problems in the United States.  Citizens are being prosecuted federally for following their states laws, the federal government is being very unclear on their stance for the legality of marijuana in these states, the Food and Drug Association still views marijuana as a Schedule I drug even though there is vast belief that it is beneficial, and lastly banks are unable to be used as resources for state viewed legal marijuana businesses which has led to very unsafe work environments.

Federal law differing from specific states' laws on marijuana has caused many citizens who believe they are law abiding to become prosecuted by federal agents and face possible large jail sentences.  Two examples depict the problems that are being encountered in states where marijuana is legal.  Matt Davey, a citizen of California and legal medical marijuana distributor under his state's law, is facing a possible federal prison sentence of five to fifteen years after his marijuana growing warehouse was raided by DEA agents (CBS News).  Larry Harvey, a citizen of the state of Washington and owner of a medical marijuana garden and distribution center is facing similar charges after he was raided by a group of DEA agents (Altman 1-3).  Both of these situations are almost identical in nature and show a serious problem that is rising from the differences in state and federal law regarding marijuana.  Both people are law-abiding through the eyes of state law, but viewed as criminals through the eyes of federal law.  Davey is a forty three year old, happily married man with two young children (CBS News).  Harvey, who is seventy years old, is also happily married to his wife and used to be a long-haul trucker before his worn out knees forced him to retire (Altman 1).  The federal government is tearing apart these two families, as well as many others, by prosecuting them as drug manufacturers and distributors for things that they thought were perfectly legal.  Seeing the government of the greatest nation in the world that Davey, Harvey and I all proudly are a part of ruin innocent lives by attempting to throw them in federal prison is deeply saddening.  In my perspective, federal prison is a place used to imprison rapists and murders alike who lost their right to live in a peaceful and free society.  However, the federal government is abusing their power and attempting to send cooperative, innocent civilians to a terrible place of confinement.  No one should have to face forced imprisonment for operating legal businesses that are aiding United States civilians, not hurting them.  The federal government needs to realize the atrocities that they are committing by prosecuting citizens who are operating legally under state law.

This controversy is also being caused by a lack of clarity and extreme contradiction by the federal government regarding their stance on marijuana being legal in certain states.  Obama released a statement in 2008 that he will not let federal money be spent to stop the distribution of marijuana in states that it is deemed legal to do so.  This statement was further backed up during the 2009 Odgen memo by the Department of Justice when they stated that, "'[The Federal Government will not] focus federal resources [on] States [and] individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the  ...  use of marijuana.'" (Committee on the Judiciary 124)  These statements leave the United States with the impression that a citizen who is following his or her state's laws should not have to worry about being prosecuted under federal law.  However, when United States Attorneys released statements saying that the federal government will consider, "'Civil and criminal legal remedies regarding those who set up marijuana growing facilities and dispensaries, as they will be doing so in violation of federal law'" (Committee on the Judiciary 124).  This complete reversal of stance is unacceptable coming from what is viewed by many as the most powerful, free nation in the world.  The United States Attorneys made Obama and the Department of Justices' statement complete and utter lies.  Being labeled a liar is not something that Barack Obama or the Department of Justice wants.  It creates a sense of distrust and lack of faith for United States citizens as well as heavily taints how our country is portrayed by the other Nations of the world.  An even further sense of distrust is born when the facts that, "In less than four and a half years into President Obama's command, the federal crackdown on state medical marijuana programs has generated more raids than under eight years of President Bush  ...  [and] over [three hundred million dollars has been spent] during the Obama Administration" (Committee on the Judiciary 124).  It is sad to see the President of our glorious country blatantly lying to each and every one of our faces.  Furthermore, creating this very contradicting situation is making the controversy of differences between state and federal laws involving marijuana a very serious issue.  Laws are created to set the guidelines for how citizens of our country should behave but confusions stemming from clashing statements from different leaders in the government are not letting laws behave in the way that they should.

The Federal Food and Drug Association keeping the label of marijuana as a Schedule I drug is ridiculous because that pertains to drugs that have no current acceptable medical use for treatment.  "[Twenty] states and the District of Columbia have authorized marijuana as a therapeutic treatment option that physicians can recommend to their patients" (Committee on the Judiciary 131).  This shows that marijuana does in fact have medical benefits if licensed physicians are recommending it to patients for therapeutic usage.  Even one of Obama's selections to be United States Surgeon General, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, said that, "he now believes there is great medicinal value [for] marijuana" (Committee on the Judiciary 131).  If someone with great authority and medical education believes this then there should be no argument against removing marijuana from the Schedule I drugs list.  Even the, "federal government's own National Cancer Institute" has made a statement that backs up marijuana's medical value to care for cancer patients who suffer negative side effects from many modern cancer treatments (Committee on the Judiciary 132).  For the federal government to be this stubborn on keeping marijuana on the Schedule I drug list is not only sickening but also depressing to think that those who are in a life threatening battle with cancer have to worry about using a medicine to make then at the very least comfortable during possibly their final years of life.  This leads once again to the belief by many that the United States is the greatest nation in the world.  By restricting its own citizens from medicine that will be beneficial in treatment of a disease, our country will soon lose the label of greatest country because they show no care or compassion for their own people.  The Schedule I labeling of marijuana does nothing but further show how the controversy regarding marijuana in America is hurting the people.

Lastly, the federal government is making it very difficult for marijuana distributors to safely do their jobs.  Banks are not able to recognize state viewed legal marijuana businesses as legal because federal law could shut down a bank for being a customer to a marijuana business.  This forces the marijuana businesses to hold onto all of their funds in physical cash which is making them prime targets for criminals who want to find places to rob.  " ...  A financial institution that knowingly processes transactions for marijuana-related businesses commits the crime of money laundering" (Hill 617).  Banks fear being charged with money laundering and will not be able to do business of any sort with legal marijuana businesses unless there is change at the federal level.  Because of the inability of banks to do business with marijuana businesses, the employees at marijuana businesses are forced to be a part of a very unsafe work environment.  We live in a country viewed by many as being one of the safest in the world.  It is unfair to force businesses to hold onto large quantities of cash and put the employees at constant risk of being robbed possibly at gun point.  

While the clash of the legalization of marijuana between state and federal authorities has created a big controversy, marijuana is still illegal federally. 

The federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) has listed marijuana as a 'Schedule 1' controlled substance.  Schedule 1 includes drugs with a 'high potential for abuse' and, accordingly, carries the most severe criminal penalties-with commercial-scale activities defined as felonies and possession of small amounts classified as misdemeanors (Fucile 1).

As a Schedule I drug, there is no room for legalization in the eyes of the federal government.  The federal government has full, unquestionable power to prosecute those who break federal law.  Arguments that they are being unfair by prosecuting those who are following state law can be countered in three ways.  First off, federal law always carries more power than state law in any circumstance.  Secondly, priorities set by the federal government regarding marijuana are being broken.  Lastly, the belief that marijuana is medicinal has not ever been proved.  

The federal government has always been the leading controller of the United States of America.  The controversy of marijuana being legal in certain states while remaining illegal federally has brought question to who has power to express their laws.  However, it is still clear where state and federal law stand.  "Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, states are generally prohibited from immunizing conduct through state law that is prohibited under federal law" (Fucile 1).  While states might feel it is unfair for the federal government to interfere with how they choose to run their state, they cannot ignore the fact that federal law is above state law.  States realize this.  "The Oregon Supreme Court, for example, noted: 'To be sure, state law does not prevent the federal government from enforcing its marijuana laws against medical marijuana users in Oregon if the federal government chooses to do so.'" (Fucile 1).  The Supremacy Clause is a known part of the United States Constitution and its presence makes citizens being prosecuted under federal law for participating in state viewed legal marijuana practices unable to use the argument that they were following state laws.  

When marijuana started to become legal in certain states, the federal government created certain priorities that they wanted to keep.  Federal priorities regarding marijuana are to, "[curb] interstate trafficking and [prevent] youth access" (Adler 508).  These are two very legitimate priorities regarding marijuana.  Marijuana being transported from a state where it is legal to a state where it is illegal creates a very bad situation because it restricts the state that views marijuana as illegal from being able to remove its source of production.  The government also never wants to give kids easier access to drugs of any sort, and making marijuana legal in certain states could increase children's ease of access.  These two priorities of the federal government are at an increased risk of being broken now that certain states are legalizing marijuana.  Nebraska and Oklahoma filed suits against Colorado saying that, "Colorado's decision to allow a legal market in marijuana [threatens] to impose a nuisance on neighboring jurisdictions" (Adler 511).  Neighboring states worrying about marijuana leaking into their boundaries is worrisome for the federal government.  Mixed with the belief that, "Legalizing the possession and use of marijuana by adults poses the risk that marijuana will become accessible to juveniles" (Adler 511) creates a serious sense of uneasiness for the federal government.  Their hand is being forced and the only move they have is to prosecute citizens who are following state laws but breaking federal laws.

There is a popular belief that marijuana has many medicinal benefits.  This leads people to argue that it should be placed in a different category other than Schedule I.  However, due to its illegality, there have not been many tests on its benefits.  "Smoked marijuana has not been shown to be safe and effective for treating medical [conditions], primarily because its alleged therapeutic utility has yet to be sufficiently demonstrated in well-controlled clinical trials" (Government Restriction of Marijuana 160).  You cannot successfully argue for something if you do not have irrefutable evidence to back yourself up.  The government is also worried that using marijuana will create a gateway effect and will lead the user to use other, harder drugs such as cocaine and heroin (Government Restriction of Marijuana 160).  This combined with their belief that marijuana, "Presents serious behavioral and physiological risks that are neither trivial nor acceptable from a health standpoint" (Government Restriction of Marijuana 160) creates a strong counter argument to people who think marijuana should be removed from the Schedule I drug list.  

In order to properly analyze this controversy, a middle ground must be met.  I see this middle ground as an area where both sides agree to a resolution that will remove the controversy involved with marijuana in the United States.  There are three possible solutions to this controversy that could be used.  While they will not perfectly solve the controversy, these solutions should start getting our country to think about ways to solve this problem.  They include regulating marijuana in the same manor that Alcohol is regulated, having states pay for externalities caused by marijuana being legal in their state boundaries, and lastly to experimentally test marijuana to come up with a uniform understanding of its health benefits and consequences.  

"One possibility is for the federal government to treat marijuana like alcohol, retaining a federal role in controlling illegal interstate trafficking but leaving each state entire free to set its own marijuana policy, whether it be prohibition, decriminalization, or somewhere in between" (Adler 512).  This resolution would work very well because it is a perfect compromise.  States are free to choose how they want to deal with marijuana, while the federal government has clear ambitions to strictly stop interstate trafficking of marijuana.  Regulation of alcohol has been very successful in the United States by following this path.  Additional benefits of having all marijuana regulated through the government would be an elimination of the black market, reduction of juvenile exposure to marijuana by implementing an age limit similar to alcohol, and tax revenue that could be used to improve education systems or public transportation.  

Another solution would be to use a real world application of the Coase Theorem.  The Coase Theorem is a theory that involves two parties naturally leaning toward the most efficient and mutually beneficial outcome to resolve the problem (Coase Theorem 1).  This solution would help eliminate surrounding states that view marijuana as illegal from paying any undo prices for neighboring states who view marijuana as legal.  The situation in Colorado is a perfect example to depict this solution.  "If Colorado's venture generates sufficient revenue to compensate its neighbors for transboundary harm and remains profitable its enterprise will have proven efficient and it will prevail" (Deveaux and Mostad-Jensen 1842).  This pretty much says that if Colorado shares some of its revenue from legal marijuana with neighboring states to cover externalities than it would benefit both parties mutually.  Therefore, Colorado would pay its neighboring states the costs that they endure from having to stop Colorado's marijuana from leaking into their borders. While this solution would only aid in the feuds between neighboring states over legal marijuana, it would help solve one of the many problems involved in the United States marijuana controversy.  

One last solution to the marijuana controversy in the United States would be to put extended research into both the benefits and side effects of marijuana.  There are serious, mixed views about marijuana in the United States.  Some people say it has medicinal benefits while others refute those claims and say it is unhealthy and dangerous.  This leaves people, "[feeling] that everything they [have] been told [is] possibly wrong" (Smith 4).  The only way to clear up this confusion is to put the time and effort into researching marijuana and creating a uniform truth about both its benefits and consequences.  After this research is done, the evidence can be used to either show the country that marijuana should or should not be legal, for both medical uses and recreational uses.

Overall, the controversy of marijuana in the United States is a serious problem that needs to be solved.  While there are two sides to this controversy, both sides need to come together and cooperate in order to fix this problem.  We call our country the United States of America and it is going to take a united effort to fix the marijuana controversy.

