Help! With finding the main claim in this article...?

Article Reads:

First, it was medical marijuana; next, it will be alcohol. The recent decision by the Supreme Court (Gonzales v. Raich) allowing federal prosecutors to go after patients, who use med. marijuana, even in places where such use is legal under state law, is just one indicator of the fed. government's newfound interest in legislating morality. As long as the Republicans remain in power, we will have not only a ban on medical marijuana, but we might also end up w/something as ill conceived as a Constitutional amendment banning alcohol. If they stay in power, we're going to have limits on everything from a federal level. This is especially interesting given that Republicans say they're the ones who don't want a strong fed. government.

Rest of the articles gives examples of what the topic of medical mj faces.

1 Answer

Relevance
  • fredo
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    The main claim, based on what you have given, is that the federal government should be limited in scope and allow states to set policy and laws for themselves. Gonzalez v. Raich found that, despite a California state law allowing medical use of marijuana, the federal government was allowed to pursue the users of marijuana--medical or not--because it was a valid exercise of their federal power to prohibit the use of marijuana for interstate commerce purposes.

    The author believes in local control and state governments having more authority, with the federal government having less.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.