How To Regulate Recreational Marijuana

First and foremost I would like to say thank you Attorney General Peterson, for bringing me on to help advise on the potential success that may come from a challenge in the Supreme Court that is in opposition of the legality of the state of Colorado’s legalization of recreational marijuana. The constitutionality of Congress being able to regulate recreational marijuana under the Controlled Substance Act of 1970, as well as the use of the Commerce Clause, is something that the court system needs to intensely scrutinize. Looking back at the precedents that have been set throughout the history of the Supreme Court, such as “Wickard V. Filburn (1942),” “Gonzalez V. Raich (2005),” “Gibbons V. Ogden (1824),” among others is a great way to gain a …show more content…
Lopez (1995).” The case is pertaining to a law banning fire arms in school zones, and while the verdict of this case may not be particularly relevant, the verdict gives a more concise interpretation of the commerce act, by breaking don 't the powers into three broad categories of activities that Congress can regulate. Of those three, categories number two and three and of particular relevance[Gilman, Graber, Whittington, 640-647]. “Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may only come from intrastate activities…. Finally, Congress’ commerce authority include the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce… i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.[Gilman, Graber, Whittington, 642]” The Case of “United States V. Lopez,” is directly referenced in another supreme court case, “Gonzales V. Raich (2005).” Gonzales V. Raich is a case that is directly related to the top of marijuana in the terms of interstate commerce, so it is extremely pertinent, and its outcome is also partially effected by the precedent set in a previously discussed case, “Wickard V. Filburn.” California licensed medical marijuana growers had their plants seized by the federal government agents, and the constitutionality of that. The supreme court ruled that because the amount being grown was not the issue, and that the marijuana being grown would still have an effect on the market, regardless of if that market was legal or not. Another issue that the Supreme Court used in the ruling was that it is hard to trace to origin of the marijuana to determine if it was sourced locally or not, which makes is a challenging to regulate[Gilman, Graber, Whittington, 647-652]. After understanding these 5 historic