political science homework

please read the instruction cearfully before making the hand shake and  put in your account that I am international studen so l need it in basic way and vocab and with out pilgrims please 

I need it in 24 hour but no more than 30 as maximum 

Federalism and Marijuana

The legality of marijuana remains a contested issue in the United States.

The federal government maintains that marijuana is a Schedule I drug, classified as “substances, or chemicals…with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” The federal government has consistently stated that marijuana is a dangerous drug but that in prioritizing the government’s resources, it will focus its enforcement on preventing distribution to minors, preventing revenue from going to criminal enterprises, and preventing possession or use on federal property, among others (the full statement from the Department of Justice can be found here (Links to an external site.))

Yet, 25 states and the District of Columbia have laws on the books legalizing marijuana in some form (see the map below). 

(Source: http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state-marijuana-laws-map-medical-recreational.html (Links to an external site.))

The discrepancy between federal and state laws poses an interesting puzzle when thinking about federalism. According to Todd Garvey, author of the Congressional Research Report Medical Marijuana: The Supremacy Clause, Federalism, and the Interplay Between State and Federal Laws (Links to an external site.), “…the relationship between the federal ban on marijuana and state medical marijuana exemptions must be considered in the context of two distinct sovereigns, each enacting separate and independent criminal regimes with separate and independent enforcement mechanisms, in which certain conduct may be prohibited under one sovereign and not the other. Although state and federal marijuana laws may be “logically inconsistent,” a decision not to criminalize—or even to expressly decriminalize—conduct for purposes of the law within one sphere does nothing to alter the legality of that same conduct in the other sphere.” That is, the Supremacy Clause can’t impel states to enforce federal laws and that the Supremacy Clause has traditionally not applied to state’s policing powers. However, the issue can still be considered in the “grey zone”

Additionally, the decision by some states to legalize or decriminalize marijuana affects relations with neighboring states that have not made such laws. What should be the responsibility of each state? What role should the federal government play in these disputes?

The following stories touch on some of the issues. 

– On the NPR Planet Money podcast episode “Big Weed” (Links to an external site.) they talk with a grower who is encountering difficulties getting loans for his legal marijuana business due to banks’ concerns about violating federal law.

– The NPR story “Nebraska Says Colorado Pot Isn’t Staying Across The Border” (Links to an external site.) demonstrates a very real issue for state-to-state relations that results when states have the ability to make law and set policies (a hallmark of federalism). The USA Today (Links to an external site.) story provides a recent update to that story.

Read/listen to the stories above. On the associated discussion board, share your view on how the marijuana issue should be resolved either in terms of the federal-government-state government relations or in state-to-state relations. For instance, should the states’ policing power be subjected to the Supremacy Clause? Is the Supremacy Clause still valid? Should states or the federal government have the final say in this issue any why? What responsibility do states that have legalized marijuana have to neighboring states?