# data[].attributes.body
I believe that recreational marijuana should remain a state issue because the federal government is very divided on this topic and is more bias against the use of recreational marijuana and is seen as  any other recreational drug like heroine and meth which it is not as deadly and harmful like the other drugs. Marijuana has been proven to be very helpful in certain disorders and conditions such as glaucoma, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and anxiety reduction. If the federal government had the control of making the decision to make recreational marijuana consider legal in all state then they should have control of this decision, but that would not happen any time soon. As of now it should remain a state issue because the states government and the people of that state can decide what is best for the condition of that state and what limits and extents marijuana in general should have.

# data[].attributes.headline
What are the main points for this to remain a state issue? a federal issue?

# data[].attributes.subject
What are the main points for this to remain a state issue? a federal issue?

# data[].attributes.body
Under the United States constitution, the federal government has the authority in specific enumerated areas, but its powers are not unlimited. State government plays a critical role in all those areas that are not left exclusively to the federal government. As a. result. State politics are extraordinarily important because states are charged with protecting the welfare, safety and health of their citizens. At the federal level, marijuana remains classified as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act, where Schedule I substances are considered to have a high potential for dependency and no accepted medical use, making distribution of marijuana a federal offense. In October of 2009, the Obama Administration sent a memo to federal prosecutors encouraging them not to prosecute people who distribute marijuana for medical purposes in accordance with state law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Card 6 of 11

Marijuana is illegal under federal law even in states that legalize it

Even as several states and Washington, DC, allow marijuana, the federal government still strictly prohibits pot.

Under the scheduling system, the federal government classifies marijuana as a schedule 1 drug, meaning it's perceived to have no medical value and a high potential for abuse.

The classification puts marijuana in the same category as heroin and a more restrictive category than schedule 2 drugs like cocaine and meth.

But that doesn't mean the federal government views marijuana and heroin as equally dangerous drugs or that it considers marijuana to be more dangerous than meth or cocaine. Schedule 1 and 2 drugs are both described as having "a high potential for abuse" - a vague description that doesn't rank drugs in the two categories as equal or different.

The big distinction between schedule 1 and 2 substances, instead, is whether the federal government thinks a drug has medical value. The DEA says schedule 2 substances have some medical value and schedule 1 substances do not, so the latter receive more regulatory scrutiny even though they may not be more dangerous.

It may be helpful to think of the scheduling system as made up of two distinct groups: nonmedical and medical. The nonmedical group is the schedule 1 drugs, which are considered to have no medical value and high potential for abuse. The medical group is the schedule 2 to 5 drugs, which have some medical value and are numerically ranked based on abuse potential (from high to low).

The schedule is not something the president could change alone, but the administration, through the attorney general or secretary of health and human services, can begin a review process for the current schedule.

There have been many calls to reschedule marijuana, but they've run into a serious hurdle: To date, there have been no large-scale clinical trials on marijuana. Those kinds of studies are traditionally required to prove a drug has medical value to the federal government. But these studies are also much more difficult to conduct when a substance is strictly regulated by the federal government as a schedule 1 drug. So pot is essentially trapped in a catch-22: It likely needs a large-scale clinical trial to be rescheduled, but those trials are going to be much harder to conduct until it's reclassified.

Congress can also pass legislation to reschedule marijuana, which legalization advocates have been lobbying legislators to do for decades.

Although the scheduling system helps shape criminal penalties for illicit drug possession and sales, it's not always the final word. Penalties for marijuana are generally far more relaxed than other schedule 1 drugs - perhaps an acknowledgment that the drug isn't as much of a risk as, for example, heroin.

Despite federal prohibition, the Obama administration took a relaxed approach to marijuana, generally letting states do as they wish as long as they met certain criteria (such as not letting legal pot fall into kids' hands or cross state lines). But the Trump administration has taken a tougher line, allowing federal prosecutors to crack down on marijuana even in states where it's legal - which could let federal law enforcement shut down state-legal pot businesses.

Pot's criminal classification at the federal level has other serious ramifications for marijuana policy even in places where state law says the drug is legal. Many state-legal marijuana businesses, for instance, must function as cash-only enterprises, since many banks are nervous about dealing with businesses that are essentially breaking federal law. Businesses also can't file for several deductions and, as a result, their effective income tax rates can soar to as high as 90 percent or more.

The result is that even as several states and public opinion move in favor of marijuana legalization, the federal government often finds itself standing in the way of a reform that many voters want after seeing the longstanding struggles and failures of the war on drugs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Marijuana is illegal under federal law even in states that legalize it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Card 6 of 11 Even as several states and Washington, DC, allow marijuana, the federal government still strictly prohibits pot. Under the scheduling system, the federal government classifies marijuana as a schedule 1 drug, meaning it's perceived to have no medical value and a high potential for abuse.

# data[].attributes.headline
How did the use of recreational marijuana become an issue of federalism?

# data[].attributes.subject
How did the use of recreational marijuana become an issue of federalism?

# data[].attributes.body
Marijuana merchants are protected by a provision in the federal budget that prohibits the Justice Department from spending money to block state laws that allow medicinal cannabis. The Justice Department did not interfere with state laws that legalize marijuana and instead focused on prosecuting drugs cartel and the transport of cannabis across state lines. According to a recent Quinnipiac University survey, 59 percent of Americans think marijuana "should be made legal in the United States," while 71 percent "oppose the government enforcing federal laws against marijuana in states that have already legalized medical or recreational marijuana." Among Republicans, only 35 percent favored legalization, but 55 percent opposed federal interference with it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last week White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer predicted "greater enforcement" of the federal ban on marijuana in the eight states that have legalized the drug for recreational use. This week Attorney General Jeff Sessions, an old-fashioned drug warrior who thinks "good people don't smoke marijuana," seemed to confirm Spicer's warning, telling reporters, "We're going to look at it...and try to adopt responsible policies."

If those "responsible policies" involve legal action aimed at shutting down state-licensed marijuana businesses, they will be contrary to public opinion, President Trump's campaign promises, and Sessions' own avowed support for federalism. As most Republicans seem to recognize, attempts to force marijuana prohibition on states that have opted out of it are inconsistent with the decentralized system of government established by the Constitution.

According to a recent Quinnipiac University survey, 59 percent of Americans think marijuana "should be made legal in the United States," while 71 percent "oppose the government enforcing federal laws against marijuana in states that have already legalized medical or recreational marijuana." Among Republicans, only 35 percent favored legalization, but 55 percent opposed federal interference with it.

Last April a CBS News poll found even stronger Republican opposition to federal meddling. Asked if "laws regarding whether the use of marijuana is legal" should be "determined by the federal government" or "left to each individual state government to decide," 70 percent of Republicans said the latter, compared to 55 percent of Democrats (who as usual were more likely to favor legalization). These results suggest many conservatives, whatever they think of marijuana, take seriously their commitment to federalism, which Trump also claims to support.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2015, Trump said he favored medical marijuana but had concerns about broader legalization, a decision he nevertheless said should be left to the states. "In terms of marijuana and legalization," he said at a 2015 rally in Nevada, "I think that should be a state issue, state by state."

Sessions, a former Alabama senator, also claims to believe in federalism. After the death of William Rehnquist in 2005, Sessions gave a floor speech in which he praised the chief justice for "reestablish[ing] a respect for state law and state sovereignty." Sessions noted that the federal government, under its authority to regulate interstate commerce, "has broad power, but there are limits to the reach of the Commerce Clause."

When it comes to marijuana, however, Sessions has little patience for those limits. "It does remain a violation of federal law to distribute marijuana throughout any place in the United States," he observed on Monday, "whether a state legalizes it or not."

In 2005 the Supreme Court upheld continued enforcement of the federal ban on marijuana in states that have legalized the drug. But the Court did so based on a very broad reading of the Commerce Clause-the sort of interpretation that usually irks conservative constitutionalists.

The case involved homegrown marijuana used by patients in states that recognize the plant as a medicine. "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause," observed dissenting Justice Clarence Thomas, "then it can regulate virtually anything-and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

In relying on an understanding of the Commerce Clause that lets Congress do pretty much whatever it wants, Sessions outdoes one of the most famous anti-marijuana crusaders in U.S. history. Harry Anslinger, head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics from 1930 to 1962, pushed states to ban marijuana by claiming the plant turned people into rapists and murderers.

But even Anslinger did not go so far as to claim the federal government had the authority to impose marijuana prohibition on recalcitrant states. "There are no Federal laws on the growth or use of marijuana," The New York Times reported in 1931. "Mr. Anslinger said the government under the Constitution cannot dictate what may be grown within individual States."
© Copyright 2017 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last week White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer predicted "greater enforcement" of the federal ban on marijuana in the eight states that have legalized the drug for recreational use. This week Attorney General Jeff Sessions, an old-fashioned drug warrior who thinks "good people don't smoke marijuana," seemed to confirm Spicer's warning, telling reporters, "We're going to look at it...and try to adopt responsible policies."

# data[].attributes.body
Federalism is a method of government that allows two or more entities to share control over the same geographic region. The United States constitution gives the certain  powers to the U.S government and the state government. The Tenth Amendment states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Federalism is the process by which two or more governments share powers over the same geographic area. It is the method used by most democracies in the world.

While some countries give more power to the overall central government, others grant more power to the individual states or provinces.

Distribution of Power in the US Government

In the United States, the Constitution grants certain powers to both the U.S. government and the state governments.

The Founding Fathers wanted more power for the individual states and less for the federal government, a practice that endured until World War II. That "layer cake" method of dual federalism was replaced when state and national governments entered a more cooperative "marble cake" approach called cooperative federalism.

Since then, a new federalism initiated by presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan has returned some powers back to states through federal grants.

The 10th Amendment Explained

The powers granted to the state and federal governments are in the Constitution's 10th Amendment, which states,

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Those simple 28 words establish three categories of powers which represent the essence of American federalism:

Expressed or "Enumerated" Powers: Powers granted to the U.S. Congress mainly under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

Reserved Powers: Powers not granted to the federal government in the Constitution and thus reserved to the states.

Concurrent Powers: Powers shared by the federal government and the states.

For example, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants the U.S. Congress certain exclusive powers such as coining money, regulating interstate trade and commerce, declaring war, raising an army and navy and to establish laws of immigration.

Under the 10th Amendment, powers not specifically listed in the Constitution, such as requiring drivers licenses and collecting property taxes, are among the many powers "reserved" to the states.

State vs. Federal Power

The line between the powers of the U.S. government and those of the states is usually clear. Sometimes, it is not. Whenever a state government's exercise of power might be in conflict with the Constitution, there is a battle of "states' rights" which must often be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court.

When there is a conflict between a state and a similar federal law, the federal law and powers supersede state laws and powers.

Brown v. Board of Education

Probably the greatest battle over states' rights-segregation-took place during the 1960s civil rights struggle.

In 1954, the Supreme Court in its landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision ruled that separate school facilities based on race are inherently unequal and thus in violation of the 14th Amendment which states, in part:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

However, several states, predominantly in the South, chose to ignore the Supreme Court's decision and continued the practice of racial segregation in schools and other public facilities.

Plessy v. Ferguson

The states based their stance on the 1896 Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson. In this historic case, the Supreme Court, with only one dissenting vote, ruled that racial segregation was not in violation of the 14th Amendment if the separate facilities were "substantially equal."

In June of 1963, Alabama Gov. George Wallace stood in front of the doors of the University of Alabama preventing Black students from entering and challenging the federal government to intervene.

Later the same day, Wallace gave in to demands by Assistant Attorney Gen. Nicholas Katzenbach and the Alabama National Guard allowing Black students Vivian Malone and Jimmy Hood to register.

During the rest of 1963, federal courts ordered the integration of Black students into public schools throughout the South. In spite of the court orders, and with only 2% of Southern Black children attending formerly all-white schools, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorizing the U.S. Justice Department to initiate school desegregation suits was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson.

Reno v. Condon

A less momentous, but perhaps more illustrative case of a constitutional battle of "states' rights" went before the Supreme Court in November 1999, when Attorney General of the United States Janet Reno took on Attorney General of South Carolina Charlie Condon:

The Founding Fathers can certainly be forgiven for forgetting to mention motor vehicles in the Constitution, but by doing so, they granted the power to require and issue driver's licenses to the states under the 10th Amendment.

State departments of motor vehicles (DMV) typically require applicants for driver's licenses to provide personal information including name, address, telephone number, vehicle description, Social Security number, medical information, and a photograph.

After learning that many state DMVs were selling this information to individuals and businesses, the U.S. Congress enacted the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA), establishing a regulatory system restricting the states' ability to disclose a driver's personal information without the driver's consent.

In conflict with the DPPA, South Carolina laws allowed the State's DMV to sell this personal information. Condon filed a suit on behalf of his state claiming that the DPPA violated the 10th and 11th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

How This Ruling Supported State Rights

The district court ruled in favor of South Carolina, declaring the DPPA incompatible with the principles of federalism inherent in the Constitution's division of power between the states and the federal government.

The district court's action essentially blocked the U.S. government's power to enforce the DPPA in South Carolina. This ruling was further upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeals.

Ruling Appealed and Federal Power Exercised

Reno appealed the decisions to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On Jan. 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Reno v. Condon, ruled that the DPPA did not violate the Constitution due to the U.S. Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce granted to it by Article I, Section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution.

According to the Supreme Court,

"The motor vehicle information which the States have historically sold is used by insurers, manufacturers, direct marketers, and others engaged in interstate commerce to contact drivers with customized solicitations. The information is also used in the stream of interstate commerce by various public and private entities for matters related to interstate motoring. Because drivers' personal, identifying information is, in this context, an article of commerce, its sale or release into the interstate stream of business is sufficient to support congressional regulation."

So, the Supreme Court upheld the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994, and the States cannot sell personal drivers' license information without permission. That's likely appreciated by the individual taxpayer.

On the other hand, the revenue from those lost sales must be made up in taxes, which the taxpayer isn't likely to appreciate. But that's all part of how federalism works.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Government System of Federalism and How it Works

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Federalism is the process by which two or more governments share powers over the same geographic area. It is the method used by most democracies in the world. While some countries give more power to the overall central government, others grant more power to the individual states or provinces.