26 February,2024
Table of Contents
The Constitution of a country lays down provisions that are meant to be followed by the government of such State for legislating laws for the benefit of its citizens. It is ensured that such legislations are not violative of the provisions of the constitution. Any law made by the Congress that violates the provisions of the Constitution shall be declared null and void by the Supreme Court (National Archives). Constitutional Amendments are essential in order to incorporate newer and relevant provisions in the Constitution for its better implementation and enforceability. In this paper, a constitutional amendment is suggested which is to serve the people of the United States (National Archives).
As a constitutional amendment, it is suggested to insert in the Constitution that the –
“Congress is empowered to direct the government to legalize recreational drugs all over the United States and direct the States to legislate their own States laws in regard to it”`
This Constitutional amendment suggests that the Congress must make provisions in the Constitution for legalizing recreational drugs in the U.S. along with directing the all the States to embrace the amendment and incorporate the same in their respective State Constitutions or devote a particular legislation to it (National Archives). However it is to be judged from different perspective before implementing such amendment in the Constitution.
Several researches have been conducted on the consumption of Recreational drugs on a regular basis all over the globe by most modern countries and they all have come out with positive results. For example: consumption of marijuana for recreation has received globe acceptance with several modern countries like Canada, Uruguay and a few states of the U.S giving their assent to it, and subsequently legalizing it by embracing the change in their respective constitutions or making a specific legislation. The individualist approach gives a view that the changes suggested signifies liberty and freedom of choice of the people of a modern nation. By embracing legalization of recreational drug use, a revolutionary change of liberty would be brought forward which would a message for the entire world, asking others to embrace the same to create a liberated global community (Ryan‐Ibarra, Marta and Danielle 141-146).
The traditionalist approach speaks for the traditional and conservative view about the use of recreational drugs by people that is severely looked down upon. At the beginning of modern time, researchers and scientists were of the view that recreational drugs had ill-effects on human, thereby declaring them as a taboo (Schauer et al. 1-8). Since then, the recreational drugs have been looked down upon as an evil thing that only has bad effects. Thus, this Constitutional amendment could be judged from the traditional approach where the traditionalist may object to its implementation. The traditionalists may lay down cultural aspects of the country and its heritage in order to restrict the implementation of the constitutional amendment. Age old traditional scientific researches may also be cited by the traditionalists in order to support their arguments (Anderson and Daniel 221-232). However, at the end it comes down to the logical judgment of the Congressmen for implementing the right decision for the country.
Lastly, the moralist approach emphasizes on the aspects of morality and equality of the society where no one should be deprived of or disturbed by the actions of another. By the implantation of this constitutional amendment, the moralist approach may held that such an act although seems immoral, however it speaks for equality (Anderson and Daniel 221-232). For example: the choice of living of a person in U.S. would match with a person living in Canada who has the liberty to smoke marijuana freely in his country that has legalized recreational marijuana. Therefore, the moralist approach is neither fully positive nor is it absolutely negative for the matter. It neither fully negates the constitutional amendment to legalize the use of recreational drug nor does it allows it openly. This approach strives to justify the cause and at the same time oppose it based on morality and ethics (Schauer et al. 1-8).
Therefore, to find a common ground by evaluating the Individualist approach and the moralist approach between the three, it could be settled that the Congress should specifically state the particular recreational drug that could be used by the citizens of U.S. so that it becomes easier for the government to frame effective and relevant legislation for enforcing the change. It should not be the case that the people get the liberty to use any kind of random and dangerous drug for their recreation. Certain drugs must be specified for the purpose.
Anderson, D. Mark, and Daniel I. Rees. “The legalization of recreational marijuana: how likely is the worst-case scenario.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 33.1 (2014): 221-232.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-legalization-of-recreational-marijuana%3A-how-is-Anderson-Rees/a855743afc3cbcb9efdd9df7337bb146f7047eb6
National Archives. “Constitutional Amendment Process.” National Archives. N.p., 2019. Web. 25 July 2019.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution
Ryan‐Ibarra, Suzanne, Marta Induni, and Danielle Ewing. “Prevalence of medical marijuana use in California, 2012.” Drug and alcohol review 34.2 (2015): 141-146.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/dar.12207
Schauer, Gillian L., et al. “Toking, vaping, and eating for health or fun: marijuana use patterns in adults, US, 2014.” American journal of preventive medicine 50.1 (2016): 1-8.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749379715003207
WhatsApp
