Local Governance

This article discusses the differences in laws and regulations regarding marijuana in different states of the USA. It explains the concept of federal and state laws and how they conflict with each other. The article also talks about the legalization of marijuana in some states and its implications.

Running head: LOCAL GOVERNANCE
Local Governance
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1LOCAL GOVERNANCE
In the case of United States of America, it is a widely misconceived notion that the same
Federal Government runs that country and the same laws apply to all the states. The United
States is a collaboration and collection of small states (Monte, Zane & Heard, 2015). With
regards to marriage, education, abortion, there are differences in the laws that are followed. The
Federal State has the authority to deal with issues that are plaguing the Government. The burning
issues are many and it is the sole responsibility of the State Government to ensure a smooth
governance. One example of this rule of application of different laws and regulations in different
states is the rule regarding marijuana (Crockett, 2014). The laws and regulations are
implemented by the state government and it is the sole responsibility of the State to ensure that
these laws are applied uniformly. There are several states and the Washington DC that allow
marijuana, there are different laws in other states that deal with the legality of marijuana. The
federal Government does not legalize the use of pot and the Government is very strict (Campbell,
Twenge & Carter, 2017). The scheduling system classifies marijuana as a schedule 1 drug. The
schedule 1 drug is perceived to be of high medicinal content and is perceived to save health and
lives. Marijuana also has a high potential to be abused. Under the Federal Laws, marijuana is put
in the same bracket of restrictive drugs like heroin that have the potential of causing immense
harm. Meth and cocaine have been put on the schedule 2 because they are considered to be
immensely abusive and are also considered to be harming the people. In cases of categorizing of
drugs in different schedules, it is done so to prove that both the drugs are abusive and have the
potential of causing harm (Pacula et al., 2015). The drugs in these categories are not equal but
are equally harmful. Some states have legalized marijuana whereas in some states marijuana is
illegal. In Colorado, the Denver Kush Club legalizes recreational marijuana. In Colorado, the
customers are allowed to use recreational marijuana. The law is not the same in case of Texas. In

2LOCAL GOVERNANCE
Texas, possession of weed is illegal. In case of comparison of the two states, it is clear to
understand that the laws in Texas and Colorado are not the same in relation to weed. In
Colorado, if a customer buys an eight ounce of weed in Colorado, it will not be a punishable
offence, whereas if a customer scores eight ounce of weed in Texas, the person shall be
penalized and will also be imprisoned (Dioun & Haveman, 2017). In Texas, even if a customer
purchases 2 ounces of weed, he shall be awarded severe punishment.
These two states prove that laws are different in these 2 states and that these are the prime
example of application of different laws and regulations in two different states. Therefore these
two states are illustrating a nation that is divided on the basis of legalization of marijuana.
Though in Colorado, the law is awaiting an assent of the Congress, the people in that state are
already enjoying the legalization. The law on marijuana in Colorado is dicey, as it has not openly
decriminalized marijuana, it has not legalized the same. In the United States of America, twenty
seven states and the District of Colorado have approved the application for legalization of
Marijuana.
The difference between federal law and state law is that under the United States of America,
every state is considered to be a sovereign and they are considered to be entities that have their
own sovereignties. The federal law is created by the federal Government and it shall be binding
upon all the states in the United States. Though the federal laws are applicable on all the states,
there are a few exceptions where the federal laws shall not be applied. There are instances when
the state law and the federal law conflict each other. Instances have been such when the state law
has prevailed over a state law (Bradford & Bradford, 2016).
The reason behind the legalization of marijuana in some states is because the schedule where
marijuana finds its mention whereas in some states marijuana does not get any legal accord

3LOCAL GOVERNANCE
because the medicinal benefits of marijuana are overlooked or not given proper
acknowledgment. Though some state laws have legalized the use of marijuana and there are no
chances for a customer to go to prison for the use of marijuana, in some states, marijuana has
been legalized for having recreational or medicinal purposes. The federal law in general does not
recognize the use of marijuana as legal and therefore as a general rule, no citizen is allowed to
possess marijuana.

4LOCAL GOVERNANCE
References
Bradford, A. C., & Bradford, W. D. (2016). Medical marijuana laws reduce prescription
medication use in Medicare Part D. Health Affairs, 35(7), 1230-1236.
Campbell, W., Twenge, J., & Carter, N. (2017). Support for marijuana (cannabis) legalization:
untangling age, period, and cohort effects. Collabra: Psychology, 3(1).
Crockett, T. (2014). Legalization of Marijuana.
Dioun, C., & Haveman, H. (2017). Pricing Conflict: Legal Regimes, Uncertainty, and Price in
Medical Marijuana Markets. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2017, No. 1,
p. 17381). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
Monte, A. A., Zane, R. D., & Heard, K. J. (2015). The implications of marijuana legalization in
Colorado. Jama, 313(3), 241-242.
Pacula, R. L., Powell, D., Heaton, P., & Sevigny, E. L. (2015). Assessing the effects of medical
marijuana laws on marijuana use: the devil is in the details. Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management, 34(1), 7-31.