Arguments Against The 10th Amendment

The 10th amendment was written as the last amendment on the original Bill of Rights. It was added to assure the delegates from different states that the Federal Government would not step outside the boundaries established in the Constitution. It also helps define the concept of federalism, the relationship between Federal and state governments. Having said that, it would seem obvious that the state should be allowed the power to prevent or accept the use of marijuana for medical reasons. Most would agree but it is possible that others have a different opinion on the subject. The delegates of states should have power to conclude whether or not a law of that state should be made but a reasonable argument should be made towards the law and should
“Generally, the resolutions argued that because the federal government was the outcome of a compact between the states, all powers not specifically granted to the central authority were retained by the individual states or by the people. For this reason, they maintained that the states had the power to pass upon the constitutionality of federal legislation”. This could be interpreted that an issue such as the distribution and use of medical marijuana within states could be abolished or legalized from the power of the states that was retained if it is not specifically established to the main
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. One way of interpreting this information would be that the states have the power to create their own laws as long as they coincide with the constitution and do not deny anyone their rights. If medical marijuana was accepted in all states, it would possibly improve society on different levels rather than harm it. Legalizing marijuana would not only be beneficial, but it would not affect the rights to man. Much like every other topic, there are pros and cons to this debate such as the fact that it can relieve practically any pain and minimize suffering to an individual but on the other hand, but there are other alternatives rather than