November 19, 2014
By Mishalle Camacho-Kolakowska
After years of testimony, local Connecticut dispensaries recently began selling medical marijuana to qualified patients. Panelists gathered at Tunxis Community College to discuss the constitutional issues regarding the legalization of medical marijuana earlier this semester.
Dr. Rafael Fierro, a history professor at Tunxis, was first to take the podium.
He began his presentation by quoting the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
He argued that by implementing a federal law that prohibits the distribution and use of medical marijuana, the United StatesGovernment would be obstructing the rights of the American people. According to Fierro, the legality of the matter should be left to the states. In defense of his claim, he noted that following the administration of the 18th Amendment, consumption of alcohol did not decrease, but crime rates did increase.
He continued, arguing that it was the early 20th century progressives that had advocated for the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937—the same Anglo-Saxon progressives who forced the sterilization of female minorities and blamed Mexicans for the “depurifying” of American society. The statute acted as a catalyst for the eventual illegalization of the drug in the coming years.
Following Fierro’s presentation, Robert Brown, professor of English and history at Tunxis Community College, began to state his opinion on the matter.
Brown discussed the ongoing conflict between the powers of state and Congress. He addressed the lack of attention put forth by the federal government on the issue of marijuana, stating that the Obama administration has essentially implemented a “don’t ask don’t tell” policy.
He voiced that the states need to take precedence over the matter of legalizing medical marijuana. “Congress does nothing to make the necessary changes for the people,” he said, affirming his belief that the states would.
Dr. Francis Coan, also a professor of history at Tunxis, addressed the amendment process that may interfere with the legalization of marijuana.
He noted that, prior to the 18th Amendment, many states had implemented their own prohibition practices. By 1917, 24 states had regulations set in place overlooking the consumption and distribution of alcohol.
Two years later, in 1919, the 18th Amendment was ratified. Coan noted the massive increase in crime rates, primarily the overwhelming participation in mob-related activities, in the following years. By 1929, crime rates had skyrocketed in nearly every city.
According to Coan, the process in which an amendment becomes ratified requires a broad based “super majority,” so the ratification of the 21st—in which the 18th was repealed—was no surrender.
There was groundbreaking support for the nullification-themed National Prohibition Act by 1933, he stated, and the vote to ratify the 21st Amendment won by a landslide.
He argued that the decision to ratify the new amendment had more than a just cause and that the practices of prohibition should be left to the states without federal preemption.
Renald Marchand, professor of criminal justice at Tunxis and veteran of the Cheshire Police Department, offered his perspective on the matter.
He discussed the history of the 18th Amendment, noting the repercussions of the act when faced with criminal activity.
According the Marchand, the metropolitan city of Chicago, prior to Prohibition, was not known for its gang and mob activity, but rather for its industrialized businesses. But he noted that the destabilization of the delicate industrial system of Chicago was directly coincidental with the ratification of the act.
Marchand also stated that the creation of an amendment that legalized the utilization of medical marijuana would do more harm than good. Rather, he believes that the federal government needs to readdress its 10th Amendment and let the states “duke it out for themselves.”
Comments