Federal Government and State Drug Laws - Essay Example

The audience intended through this letter is the people of Colorado who have a negative attitude regarding federal laws as being unjust and applied selectively and are interested in knowing the local laws and how the federal government impacts them.
I expect my audience to possess knowledge about drug abuse and the legislations in place regarding cultivation, importation and possession of drugs. They should also know the penalties applicable if prosecuted by the federal government or the state.

The author assumed that Bartkowicz was unfairly charged as amendment 20 should have been used instead of the federal drug laws as the federal government had tolerated amendment 20 for over a decade. In this sense, he felt the amendment should be done away with. My response is that Bartkowitcz lacked understanding of amendment 20 and had contravened the Colorado state laws as well as the federal drug law hence was accused justly and even if he was allowed to use amendment 20 as defense, it would be of no use to him. He thus has a case to answer.

The tone of the response discourages the audience from using state laws as scapegoats in avoiding prosecution. Although Bartkowicz was to be given a stiff penalty, he deserved it for contravening drug law and cultivating marijuana which is harmful to health. The letter is easy for the audience to comprehend and make their own judgment regarding the case but the Drug laws need to be elaborated so that they can fully understand.

Re: Letter to the Denver Post
In response to Vincent Carroll’s article that appeared in the Denver Post on 9/22/2010, some aspects of the controversy between federal government laws and state laws regarding drug abuse are brought to light. I analyzed some aspects of the case against Bartkowicz regarding marijuana cultivation and use. My response will stress the differences and similarities between federal law and state law regarding marijuana so as to show that the case is not a gross injustice and hence no need to do away with amendment 20.

The audience should be aware of what is contained in Colorado’s medical- marijuana amendment and what the federal government's stand on the issue is. This way they will understand amendment 20 and make an informed decision as to whether the Bartkowicz case is a gross injustice or not.

The federal government through the comprehensive Drug Abuse and Prevention and Control Act of 1970 banned the import, cultivation and distribution of illicit drugs and placed marijuana together with heroin in schedule I as nonacceptable for medical use but the potential for abuse according to the federal bureau of justice statistics(1992). On the other hand, the state of Colorado through an amendment in November 2000 passed legislation that legalized the medical use of marijuana in treating cancer, HIV/AIDS, severe nausea and other diseases with restrictions (Department of public health and environment, 2010). My readers would agree that this piece of legislation contravenes the federal law which does not acknowledge marijuana as a useful medication.

In Colorado, patients and caregivers enroll in the state medical marijuana registry and are issued with a registry identification card by the state health agency in order to be allowed to use marijuana and can possess no more than two ounces of usable form marijuana and not more than six marijuana plants per patient. Bartkowicz had 12 patients’ certificates and cultivated more than 200 plants which means he contravened the state law as well as federal law which prohibits possession of more than 100 plants and besides the patient certificates are confidential and are kept by the state health agency. Furthermore, the article quotes him as having bragged about his profits and ability to operate a grow house without detection, thus he was not cultivating marijuana for medical purposes and this contravenes the state law.

Operating within 1000 ft of a school or playground is punishable by federal law and so does the Colorado law which prohibits the use of marijuana in a place open to the general public. Bartkowicz was thus contravening both laws by operating within 1000ft of the school.

Vincent Carroll assumes that because the federal government has tolerated the Colorado medical–marijuana amendment for long, then the same case should be applied while dealing with Bartkowicz's case and hence his defense using amendment 20 be upheld to avoid injustice. However, though Bartkowicz claims to be compliant with state law, it is clear that he does not understand the Colorado medical marijuana amendment as he has contravened several sections of the amendment and the fact that he has two prior convictions is enough reason to prosecute him. The controversy between federal and state laws should not be used as a scapegoat to breach the law.

Amendment 20, in this case, would not help Bartkowicz as he had not complied with it and the sentence thus given is justified to give a lesson to those who hide under state law to avoid punishment by the federal government. The justice department should hence not discard amendment 20.