Medical Marijuana: The Supremacy Clause, Federalism, and the Interplay Between State and Federal Laws

To contact us Click HERE


ToddGarvey
Legislative Attorney

Aspart of a larger scheme to regulate drugs and other controlled substances,federal law prohibits the cultivation, distribution, and possession ofmarijuana. No exception is made for marijuana used in the course of arecommended medical treatment. Indeed, by categorizing marijuana as a ScheduleI drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the federal government has concludedthat marijuana has “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in theUnited States.” Yet 18 states and the District of Columbia havedecriminalized medical marijuana by enacting exceptions to their statedrug laws that permit individuals to grow, possess, or use marijuana formedicinal purposes. In contrast to the complete federal prohibition, these 19 jurisdictionssee medicinal value in marijuana and permit the drug’s use under certain circumstances.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has established Congress’s constitutionalauthority to enact the existing federal prohibition on marijuana,principles of federalism prevent the federal government from mandatingthat the states actively support or participate in enforcing the federal law.While state resources may be helpful in combating the illegal use ofmarijuana, Congress’s ability to compel the states to enact similarcriminal prohibitions, to repeal medical marijuana exemptions, or to directstate police officers to enforce the federal law remains limited by the Tenth Amendment.

Even if the federal government is prohibited from mandating that the statesadopt laws supportive of federal policy, the constitutional doctrine ofpreemption generally prevents states from enacting laws that areinconsistent with federal law. Under the Supremacy Clause, state laws that conflictwith federal law are generally preempted and therefore void. Courts, however,have not viewed the relationship between state and federal marijuana lawsin such a manner, nor did Congress intend that the CSA displace all statelaws associated with controlled substances. Instead, the relationshipbetween the federal ban on marijuana and state medical marijuana exemptionsmust be considered in the context of two distinct sovereigns, each enactingseparate and independent criminal regimes with separate and independentenforcement mechanisms, in which certain conduct may be prohibited underone sovereign and not the other. Although state and federal marijuana lawsmay be “logically inconsistent,” a decision not to criminalize—or even toexpressly decriminalize—conduct for purposes of the law within one sphere doesnothing to alter the legality of that same conduct in the other sphere.

This report will review the federal government’s constitutional authority toenact the federal criminal prohibition on marijuana; highlight certainprinciples of federalism that prevent the federal government from mandatingthat states participate in enforcing the federal prohibition; considerunresolved questions relating to the extent to which state authorization andregulation of medical marijuana are preempted by federal law; and assesswhat obligations, if any, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has toinvestigate and prosecute violations of the federal prohibition onmarijuana.


Date of Report: November 9, 2012
Number of Pages: 20
Order Number: R42398
Price: $29.95

To Order:


R42398.pdf to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover cardnumber, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mailor postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.