Should States Be Allowed to Make Drug Laws? Paper Example

The historical understanding of both the use of recreational and medical drugs was considered to be popular over the 19th century. Substantially this is because the federal government was mainly not involved in the restriction process of regulating the distribution and the use of medical and recreational drugs. Further, during this time, the federal government did not have any agencies to assist the medical and pharmaceutical practice regulation process. As a result, the doctors and other medical practitioners prescribed treatment for the pain, especially cocaine and morphine. However, there was a growing impact on drug abuse, which led the government to get involved in regulating and controlling drugs through taxation. Based on these determinations, it is essential to understand whether the state should be allowed to make drug laws in the country.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Drug control began to take shape during the 20th century when the federal government took control in response to the growing levels of drug abuse. As a result, the federal government sought to regulate and control these drugs through the taxation system to monitor the importation, manufacturing, and distribution process of drugs. During the 20th century, the enforcement of narcotics was tied to prohibition enforcement that was transferred to justice (Nutt et al. 578). The use of marijuana as a recreational drug was then prohibited, making it essential to be reviewed by Congress on its benefits and disadvantages to the people. One of the perspectives noted is that the federal government's role in drug law has failed given the use of incentives that have been used over the past years. For instance, the federal government has used more than $1 trillion will nearly 50 million arrests, but the embroiled fight of drugs is still seen to be higher than ever before (Nutt et al. 579).

The federal government's war of drugs has failed morally and economically, making it difficult for the local states to put more effort into establishing an agreement. As a result, it would be necessary for the states to be given the responsibility to regulate drugs. Repealing the lar to allow states to decide whether to permit drugs such as marijuana use under explicit conditions would be significant to be the people. Besides, marijuana is listed to be among the most dangerous drugs according to federal law, as evidenced from the Nixon-era Law (Van Hoof 103). Marijuana is listed under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act and ranges as high as heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine listed in Schedule II. The illogical distinctions indicate the reason as to why states have started disregarding such archaic rules of the federal government.

The Federal Controlled Substance Act is mainly noted to be part of the federal commerce power, and states laws have a conflicting view on the need and how to execute the context of medical and recreational drug laws. The Act specifies that Congress's statement on drug abuse is deemed a national problem requiring federal control. Further, the drug problems often have a significant variance from state to state and are vital in allowing the local jurisdictions to have wider discretion for developing more creative responses (Van Hoof 104). However, there are also concerns about why it may be challenging to enable the states to regulate drug laws. This is because they may be developed as entities to function as commercial enterprises that may discriminate the residence's favor in the states (Nutt et al. 578). For instance, some states may impose restrictions such as purveyors of some substances that would be a burden to interstate commerce.

Legalizing marijuana can be set by following the need for states to regulate drug laws due to various measures. The need to legalize marijuana on the grounds of being useful in medicinal purposes. The state marijuana laws vary and can be divided into three distinct groups: medical use, criminalization or decriminalization, and legalization. State medical marijuana laws have variances, but all recognize the effect on cannabis therapy and cannabinoids (Wilkinson 524). The laws, such as the Compassionate Use Act, were essential laws making it necessary for states to be allowed to regulate drugs. Substantially, this is because it can benefit patients who are seriously ill by ensuring that physicians can be permitted to recommend marijuana when the health of the patient would benefit from the use of marijuana. The decriminalization law focuses on the change of law, which minimizes the penalties on the use of marijuana (Wilkinson 524). The law dictates that instead of arresting marijuana users, the police issue citations similar to parking tickets carrying minimal fines that do not result in criminal records.

The states should also be allowed to regulate the drag laws, especially for marijuana, since they are considered to be taking the lead of locking up thousands of their citizens to possess the substance that has less potential for abuse or even destructive behavior than alcohol. The consumption of marijuana needs to be fundamentally enhanced to be imposed on the states, whereby it enhances the necessary rights and does not affect people's health. Legalizing drugs such as marijuana would be a relief from then law enforcers based on the statistics obtained from the enforcement agencies. For instance, marijuana accounts for about 4% of drug crime arrest sales and manufacturing. Approximately 38% account for possession and use drugs, which places a significant burden on the judicial system (Wilkinson 524). Legalizing drugs such as ss marijuana would be a useful measure that most States in the United States can regulate drug laws. On the other hand, there are various fiscal reasons when states are allowed to regulate drug laws they would benefit. Marijuana is considered one of the significant top-selling agricultural products, with sales topping up to $ 7.6 billion (Wilkinson 524). Therefore, states' legalization of marijuana would double the sales currently experienced for the local state and federal governments. It is argued that there are estimates on government spending by about $30 billion yearly on drug prohibition (Wilkinson 524). Notably, legalizing marijuana would be essential in minimizing such spending and channeling it to other nations' developments.

In general, the concept of being allowed to make drug laws is critical to be put into consideration. The benefits to be obtained in giving the States such responsibilities need to out the way the negativities experienced. One of the perspectives noted is that the federal government's role in drug law has failed given the use of incentives that have been used over the past years. For instance, the federal government has used more than $1 trillion will nearly 50 million arrests, but the embroiled fight of drugs is still seen to be higher than ever before (Wilkinson 524). Besides, some advantages can be experienced when allowing states to make drug laws such as fiscal concerns would be improved, the need for medication would be significant for patients with pain, and law enforcement agencies will also be relieved with legalizing marijuana.

Works Cited

Nutt, David J., Leslie A. King, and David E. Nichols. "Effects of Schedule I drug laws on neuroscience research and treatment innovation." Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14.8 (2013): 577-585.

Van Hoof, Wannes, Guido Pennings, and Petra De Sutter. "Cross-border reproductive care for law evasion: should physicians be allowed to help infertility patients evade the law of their own country?" European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 202 (2016): 101-105.

Wilkinson, Samuel T. "More Reasons States Should Not Legalize Marijuana: Medical and Recreational Marijuana: Commentary and Review of the Literature." Missouri medicine, vol.110, no.6, (2013), pp. 524.