One of the enduring debates in the history of the United States is how much power the federal government should have versus how much power state or local government should have. This debate over the balance of power between states and the federal government resulted in a civil war that cost over 600,000 US lives. It also made for contentious debate over the role of the federal government in ensuring civil rights to blacks during the 20th century.
The debate over local control has come to Galt as well. The city of Galt has asked that the Wellness Center that operated as a medical marijuana dispensary shut its doors. The city of Galt went so far as to ask the Sacramento Superior court to issue an injunction forcing the business to close.
Should an issue like medical marijuana be handled at the local level like the city of Galt thinks it should? Should it be handled by the state government in Sacramento so the state itself has a uniform policy? Keep in mind that the federal government already has a provision in place outlawing medical marijuana. Additionally, the Supreme Court has ruled (Gonzales v Raich, 2005) that under the commerce clause the federal government has every right to prohibit local sales of marijuana even if the state has already allowed its use.
So how should our country handle an issue like medical marijuna? Should each local government make the decision? Should each state make a uniform policy or does the federal government have sufficient knowledge to make a law that impacts us in Galt? What would be best policy for our society? A uniform "war on drugs" policy from Washington, DC? A state-wide policy or a local decision? What is most fair to the citizens of the US/state/city of Galt? What is most democratic? Does the federal government have too much control as is?
Be sure to post before Wednesday at 8:00am and cite any sources used.