Author: eugene

Can the U.S. attorney general interpret a congressional law as a prohibition of marijuana as medical aid in dying?

Should Congress be able to tell a state that it cannot allow the use of medical marijuana? Can the U.S. attorney general interpret a congressional law as a prohibition of marijuana as medical aid in dying? The debate over the balance of state and national power has grown increasingly complicated in the past several years. The courts have played a larger but inconsistent role, and issues of states’ rights have increasingly cut across normal ideological and partisan divisions. Since the mid-1990s, the Supreme Court has played a central role in the shift of power to the states, but two cases involving medical marijuana (Gonzales v. Raich, 2005) and aid in dying—or assisted suicide, as it was called at the time of the decision—(Gonzales v. Oregon, 2006) show how the typical debate between national and state power can change when a moral dimension is introduced.

As a matter of policy, should doctors be able to prescribe marijuana to alleviate pain? Should they be able to prescribe lethal drugs to terminally ill patients? How do you think these issues should be decided? Articulate your answer and give a rationale, if you come to different conclusions between the questions.

Do you tend to support a state-centered or nation-centered perspective on federalism? Now revisit your answers to question: “As a matter of policy, should doctors be able to prescribe marijuana to alleviate pain? Should they be able to prescribe lethal drugs to terminally ill patients?” Are your positions more consistent with your views on federalism or with your policy concerns? If your view match up (your view of federalism supports your view of these policy issues here)- would it matter if we changed the policy issue at all? For instance, what if the policy proposal passed by the state (prevented by the government) was to raise the legal drinking age to 25? Would your view of federalism still support your answer?