Federal Government and Medical-Marijuana Amendment - Essay Example

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 will determine and provide them with an informed decision regarding the Bartkowicz case.

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 use, and other diseases with restrictions (Department of public health and environment, 2010). 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 registry identification cards by the state health agency in order to be allowed to use marijuana. But they can possess no more than two ounces of a usable form of marijuana and not more than six marijuana plants per patient.

Bartkowicz had 12 patients’ certificates and cultivated more than 200 plants which clearly means a violation of the state law as well as federal law prohibiting possession of more than 100 plants. 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 but selling it for a profit. Clearly contravening the law through drug trafficking.

Operating within 1000 ft of a school or playground is also among the provisions punishable by federal law. Concurrently, the Colorado law prohibits the use of marijuana in a place open to the general public. Bartkowicz was apprehended operating within 1000ft of the school. This is another indication of his guilt without meritorious defense.

Vincent Carroll presumes 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. This misleads his defense under amendment 20 a tenable argument. However, though Bartkowicz claims to be compliant with state law shows that he does not understand the Colorado medical marijuana amendment as he has contravened several sections of the amendment. The fact of 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. This provides 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.

Sincerely,