Complete The Matrix By Selecting Three States To Add Below

Complete The Matrix By Selecting Three States To Add Below Federal Th

Complete the matrix by selecting three states to add below Federal. Then, answer each question listed in the first row for each corresponding law. Is marijuana illegal? What are the penalties for possession of cocaine? What are the penalties for possession of heroin? What are the penalties for possession of prescription drugs? What is the blood alcohol level for a driving while intoxicated (DWI) or driving under the influence (DUI) crime? Is there extreme DWI or DUI? If so, what is the punishment? Federal 1. Where do you see the largest variance between federal and state anti-drug legislation? 2. What is the purpose of anti-drug legislation in relation to public order crime?

Paper For Above instruction

The regulation of drugs and the legal penalties associated with their possession and use are complex and vary significantly across different jurisdictions in the United States. Federal law provides a baseline framework; however, individual states can enact stricter or more lenient legislation, reflecting regional policies and cultural attitudes toward drug use. This paper explores the differences between federal and selected state laws by examining three specific states—California, Texas, and New York—and compares their drug laws to federal statutes across key parameters. Furthermore, it analyzes the variances to identify where the largest discrepancies lie and discusses how these differences influence public order and criminal justice.

First, regarding marijuana legality, federal law classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug, effectively rendering it illegal at the federal level. Nonetheless, many states, including California and New York, have legalized recreational marijuana, though it remains illegal under federal law. Conversely, Texas maintains a strict stance, categorizing marijuana as illegal for recreational use, with limited medicinal allowances. This divergence illustrates a significant variance in drug policy: some states adopting a tolerant approach while federal policy remains prohibitive.

Second, penalties for possession of controlled substances like cocaine and heroin show marked differences. Federally, possession of cocaine or heroin typically results in significant imprisonment, often ranging from 5 to 20 years depending on quantity and intent. States like Texas impose harsh penalties—up to life imprisonment with additional sentencing enhancements—whereas California maintains a tiered penalty structure, which sanctions less severe penalties for smaller quantities. Similarly, prescription drug possession penalties vary: federally, unauthorized possession of prescription drugs is treated as a felony, with penalties dependent on the specific drug and quantity involved.

Third, regarding alcohol-related laws, federal regulations set a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit of 0.08% for DWI or DUI offenses nationwide. Many states adopt this standard but also have penalties such as license suspension, fines, and jail time. Some states, like Texas, have additional strict penalties for repeat offenses or higher BAC levels—sometimes termed extreme DWI or DUI, typically at a BAC of 0.15% or higher—resulting in increased fines, longer jail terms, or mandatory treatment programs. These state-specific modifications highlight the variability in addressing alcohol-related public safety issues.

Analyzing the largest variance between federal and state anti-drug legislation, a notable difference appears in the legalization and decriminalization of marijuana. While federal law prohibits marijuana entirely, several states have voted to legalize recreational use, creating a legal conflict and complex enforcement landscape. California, for example, legally permits recreational marijuana, yet federal authorities still consider its possession and sale illegal, leading to crackdowns and legal ambiguity. This divergence is the most prominent discrepancy because it reflects fundamental policy disagreements and impacts treaty obligations, law enforcement priorities, and individual rights.

The purpose of anti-drug legislation in relation to public order crime is primarily to deter drug use and trafficking, reduce drug-related violence, and protect public health and safety. Legislation aims to create deterrents through penalties and sanctions, thereby discouraging drug-related behaviors that tend to increase crime rates, such as violence associated with drug trafficking or property crimes committed to support drug habits. Moreover, laws serve to regulate drug distribution and consumption, aiming to prevent widespread addiction and the associated social costs. Effective legislation, therefore, functions as both a preventive measure and a means of maintaining social stability by reducing drug-influenced public disorder.

In conclusion, the comparison of federal and state drug laws reveals significant disparities, especially in the legalization of marijuana and penalties for drug possession. These variances underscore the tension between federal authority and state sovereignty, reflecting differing societal values and approaches to drug control. Anti-drug legislation remains a crucial component of public order policy, seeking to balance enforcement with public health priorities and societal safety considerations.

References

- Drug Enforcement Administration. (2023). Marijuana. DEA.gov. https://www.dea.gov

- California Department of Public Health. (2022). Cannabis laws in California. CDPH.ca.gov. https://www.cdph.ca.gov

- Texas Department of Public Safety. (2023). Texas alcohol laws. DPS.Texas.gov. https://www.dps.texas.gov

- New York State Office of Cannabis Management. (2022). Cannabis laws and regulations. OCM.ny.gov. https://ocm.ny.gov

- United States Code, Title 21, Controlled Substances Act. (1970). Public Law 91-513. https://uscode.house.gov

- Maccoun, R. J., & Babor, T. (2019). The global politics of drug prohibition. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 15, 237-253.

- Caulkins, J. P., & Kilmer, B. (2016). Considering marijuana legalization: The importance of regulatory design. Addiction, 111(3), 378–385.

- Reuter, P., & Guymon, T. J. (2018). The effect of marijuana legalization on youth: A review of the literature. Public Health Reports, 133(4), 379-389.

- Wall, M., & Kinner, S. (2019). Legal frameworks for blood alcohol concentration limits and their impact. Journal of Safety Research, 70, 177-182.

- United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2022). World drug report. UNODC.org. https://www.unodc.org