Hey guys, from Cal State University of San Marcos, welcome to Views Through the Millennials. I'm Sandra Ramales. Every week, we discuss the present political issues but only through the eyes of the millennial generation. Each week, for one hour, we bring to light issues that our government face and our own personal opinions in the matter. So, stick around and learn a little about our government and maybe a little bit of history. Today's topic is something I'm sure will interest you and that is, Marijuana.
I'm sure you all know about the current state laws concerning marijuana and if you don't then let me inform you. We know medical marijuana has been legal since 1996 with Proposition 215, but it was only for medicinal purposes. As of Jan
…show more content…
However, under federal law, marijuana is still illegal and treated like any other controlled substance. The federal government views marijuana as highly addictive and having no medical value. Recently, federal agencies have created guidelines and other policy memos to manage the conflict between federal and state laws regarding …show more content…
And no, I don't mean the products themselves or the process of creating the products. Just the simple act of the products moving from state to state. This clause has experienced some difficulties due to its lack of specificity.
For example, in Wickard v Filburn (1942), the Supreme Court assessed Congress' authority to regulate economic activities under the commerce clause, which reads in part: "The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The court decided that this power includes the authority to regulate activities that take place within a state but only if those activities affect interstate commerce, even if the activities do not meet a definition of "commerce".
Another example includes Gonzales v. Raich (2005), where the Supreme Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law saying contrary. Their argument was that local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national