Find Insurance Online

"Federal agencies conducted 26 raids on medical marijuana facilities in 13 Montana cities [in mid-March, 2011], as agents seized thousands of marijuana plants and froze about $4 million in bank funds. The raids stunned medical marijuana advocates, many of whom believed the Obama administration's policy was to leave states with medical marijuana laws alone. That belief stemmed from Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement in October 2009 that the pursuit of 'individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance' with existing state medical marijuana laws would be the lowest priority of U.S. law enforcement. . . . Montana U.S. Attorney Michael Cotter said there was 'probable cause that the premises were involved in illegal and large-scale trafficking of marijuana. . . . When criminal networks violate federal laws, those involved will be prosecuted.' . . . While 15 states have legalized some form of medical marijuana use, the federal government still considers the drug an illegal controlled substance with a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. Justice Department officials contend the focus of investigations involving marijuana is on large-scale drug traffickers and not on individual patients. 'We have made clear that we are not going to look the other way while significant drug-trafficking organizations try and shield their illegal efforts from investigation and prosecution through the pretense that they are medical dispensaries,' Justice Department spokeswoman Jessica Smith said. Marijuana advocates say enforcement of illegal activities involving medical marijuana should fall to the states, not the federal government."

Analysis:

This case illustrates a faulty application of federalism. This is not to say that the U.S. Government should have ignored the drug trafficking or that Montana's statute should be plowed over by the FBI.  Rather, the problem lies in a given activity--that of medical use of pot in this case--being simultaneously legal and illegal. This logical contradiction pits one law enforcement agency against another in the same territory. As a result, the citizens, being subject to two governments, are pulled in two directions at once. Just as the states are obliged to recognize the validity of federal statutes, so too the U.S. Government must recognize that of state statutes unless the latter fall within the enumerated powers of the federal government.

While regulating the trafficking of drugs across state lines falls underthe interstate commerce clause, the use of pot for medical purposes--and I would add for any purpose within a state--does not touch the partial sovereignty of the U.S. Government. If the latter is allowed to reach into the domestic domains of the individual state, there is essentially no state left. Such a consolidated empire suffers from the pressures that inevitably arise from central rule over an inherently diverse empire-scale union of republics. Relying on a "lowest priority" from an empire-level official is no guardian at all for state government having any dignity, not to mention force to effect its own laws within its sovereign domain. Moreover, federalism is a system of government that is structural, meaning that it cannot effectively rely on the charity of one government toward the laws of the other. In the example of medical marijuana and drug trafficking, it is significant that the U.S. Government does not distinguish between them. In so doing, the U.S. Government was refusing to accept the validity of the state governments. It as though the U.S. Attorney General were saying to Montana, "You can make a law legalizing medical marijuana but I'm not going to recognize it."

I contend that basic to a system of federalism is the basic respect that the two governments in a given territory have for each other's sovereignty, and thus law-making authority. That the U.S. Government refuses to recognize a state law does not nullify that law, just as nullification by a state, such as South Carolina in 1832, does not invalidate a U.S. statute.  Based on the foundation of mutual respect, the respective governments must be held back from trespassing on the other's domains. The rub, as it were, lies in the matter of an umpire to resolve such disputes, for the U.S. Supreme Court is a branch of one of the two governments. It would be telling indeed were that court to affirm that the U.S. Government need not recognize Montana's law. This could very well happen, in which case it would be natural for the disrespected state to seek its independence from the union. I suspect that such a fate awaits the United States, though when I know not. The reason lies ultimately in the arrogance of superior power, as in one who has been able to define the debate without dispute.

Click to add a Comment or Question (or View Posted Comments) on medical marijuana and drug trafficking under federalism.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20110318/medmarijuanaraids18_st.art.htm
(John S. Adams, "Medicinal Pot Raids in Mont. Stun Activists," USA Today, March 18, 2011, p. 3A)