Week 5 Individual Project

The issue of legalizing marijuana has been a topic of discussion and debate for decades in society. In America, the debate has been fueled by various researches conducted to prove the usability of marijuana in a medical context, (Katner, 2018). Many scientists and researchers have collaborated with an effort to provide the ultimate report to end the debate. The parties proposing for legalization of marijuana have well-documented reports to support their claims that marijuana could benefit society. On the other hand, individuals opposing the legalization of marijuana have clearly stated the negative impact of marijuana in society. Some parties opposing the move have pointed out the relationship between violent activity in society with the use of marijuana. Reports obtained from various government databases indicate that the crime rate is quite higher in areas where marijuana is widely used. The debate has, therefore, created mixed reactions in society.

The main reason as to why this particular topic is relevant is due to the sensitivity of the matter. The American constitution allows states to either legalize or criminalize marijuana within their jurisdiction. The same constitution mandates the federal government with the duty of enforcing laws on the use of first-class drugs such as marijuana. Due to this law provision, some states have legalized the use of marijuana while others have criminalized it. This has led to the emergence of conflicts between neighboring states with different views about the legalization of marijuana. It is hardly possible to regulate the use of marijuana within a specific jurisdiction. The spillover effect has led to both legal and ethical issues in society, (Wright & Holland, 2017). As the electioneering period gets closer, the debate on legalization has become very heated. The politicians barely understand the legal and ethical issues at stake.

Literature Review

The American constitution grants maximum autonomy of operations to both the federal government and the state governments. However, some laws established within the constitution are fully enforceable by the federal government agencies across all states. State laws are only relevant and enforceable within the borders of a specific state. According to Federal laws, marijuana is classified as a schedule 1 prohibited drug substance with other drugs such as heroin, (Katner, 2018). The federal government, through its drug enforcement agency, is required by the law to crack down on the supply and use of marijuana across America. This power is, however, limited in some states where marijuana has been decriminalized and its use has been allowed. As a result, there have been numerous conflicts between federal agencies and state governments. It is hardly possible to draw the line for the use of marijuana. Some states are freely allowing the marijuana business and use while the federal government is tirelessly fighting to eliminate the prohibited substance.

The debate on the legalization of marijuana has not only created legal conflicts but also ethical issues among legal practitioners. A conflict has emerged on where to draw the line between ethics and laws in society. The fact that marijuana remains a prohibited substance under federal law makes creates ethical issues especially in the corporate world. For instance, an employee could use marijuana since its legalized in the state where they are domiciled. The managers would be at a cross path not knowing which law to uphold in this case; state or federal law? Ethics are society’s moral constructs that define what is right or wrong. The constructs are always different depending on the community, (Vaughn, 2015). On the other hand, laws are drafted to provide a common ground for all communities. With a lack of a common policy to regulate the legalization of marijuana, ethical issues as well as legal issues are bound to arise.

Legal practitioners are by far the most affected by the legalization of marijuana in various states. Any member admitted to the legal bar is expected to uphold both the state and the federal laws at all times, (El-Zein, 2017). Disregarding a federal law is considered a felony and as such any legal counsel that disregards the law prohibiting marijuana could be punished under federal law. Various State’s Bar Ethics Committees have indicated that the issue is very complex such that they are not able to advise their members appropriately. It has become quite impossible to uphold both the state law and the federal law in regions where marijuana has been decriminalized. Offering legal counsel to a client in a manner that will encourage or assist in violating federal law would be considered unethical to law practitioners, even though a lawyer is obligated to assist their client in all possible ways, (Rubin, 2018). How then can we balance between ethical standards and laws? The inter-state conflicts due to spillover effects arising from the decriminalization of marijuana have also created ethical and legal issues within America.

Laws and Regulations

In America, the Controlled substances act adopted in 1970 classifies marijuana as a schedule 1 drug. The act prohibits any use of marijuana and holds that the drug has high chances of abuse in society yet has no proven medical purpose. Despite the autonomy of power granted to both federal and state governments, the supremacy clause in the constitution holds that federal laws will preempt any conflicting state laws in America. In the year 2005, the use of marijuana was criminalized by the American supreme court, under the interstate commerce clause. Despite the existence of these laws, various states have drafted and approved bills to decriminalize marijuana. This has created a conflict between federal and state laws. Ethical issues have also emerged due to this development in the laws.

Case Scenario

Nebraska and Oklahoma Vs Colorado

According to the American constitution, the federal government is expected to respect and observe laws passed and implemented by state governments. The constitution also extends to the federal government the mandate to enforce common laws across all states where applicable. The legalization of marijuana in some states has had a ripple effect on the neighboring states thus causing inter-state conflicts. Federal courts are tasked with the duty of hearing and solving inter-state conflicts. In most cases, the ruling made in court for cases involving a conflict between federal and state laws often favors the federal government law.

A case in point, the states of Nebraska and Oklahoma launched a legal suit against Colorado over the legalization of marijuana. In the year 2012, the state of Colorado legalized the cultivation and use of marijuana. On the other hand, neighboring states such as Nebraska and Oklahoma have criminalized cultivation and use of marijuana. In recent years, there has been increased use of marijuana in Nebraska and Oklahoma since the drug was legalized in Colorado. The two affected states have complained that they spend too much on the war against using marijuana in their areas of jurisdiction. The case was presented before the supreme court and the ruling made was in favor of Colorado, (Talise, 2017).

This case indicates the ethical and legal issues that have emerged due to the legalization of marijuana. Despite there being clear laws in favor of Colorado, I feel that the defendant in this case should have upheld moral responsibility. The effect of Colorado’s legislation should be managed and controlled by the state itself. Neighboring states should not be burdened with expenses arises from poor social responsibility of another state, (Schumann, 2016).

References

El-Zein, A. (2017). Caught in a Haze: Ethical Issues of Attorneys Advising on Marijuana. Mo. L. Rev., 82, 1171.

Katner, D. R. (2018). Up in Smoke: Removing Marijuana From Schedule I. BU Pub. Int. LJ, 27, 167.

Rubin, M. H. (2018). Smokin'Hot: Ethical Issues for Lawyers Advising Business Clients in States with Legalized Medical Or Recreational Marijuana. La. L. Rev., 79, 629.

Sabet, K. (2018). Marijuana and Legalization Impacts. Berkeley J. Crim. L., 23, 84.

Schumann, E. M. (2016). Clearing the Smoke: The Ethics of Multistate Legal Practice for Recreational Marijuana Dispensaries. Mary's J. on Legal Malpractice & Ethics, 6, 332.

Talise, J. B. (2017). Take the Gatekeepers to Court: How Marijuana Research under a Biased Federal Monopoly Obstructs the Science-Based Path to Legalization. Sw. L. Rev., 47, 449.

Vaughn, L. (2015). Doing ethics: Moral reasoning and contemporary issues. WW Norton & Company.

Wright, R. T., & Holland, B. (2017). ETHICAL AND LEGAL RISKS AS COUNSEL IN BLISS MARIJUANA MARKET. Gonzaga University Law Review, 52(3), 603-620.