Introduction
A growing number of states in the US are adopting innovations that conflict with federal government standards in their public policies. For example, the state of Oregon has adopted euthanasia as a treatment for terminal illnesses, and the state of Colorado has legalized recreational marijuana. While these innovations may benefit the residents of their respective states, they are against federal government policy.
State vs. Federal Policy Controversies
Euthanasia in Oregon
One example of controversial public policy is the Oregon government’s decision to accept euthanasia as a legal practice for people being treated for serious and terminal illnesses. Euthanasia refers to the procedures for the treatment of serious illnesses, which are applied to patients suffering from helplessness. Oregon passed a law on euthanasia, which allows doctors to stop performing operations to treat patients with diseases who are unable to recover.
While this law respects the right to self-determination and empowers patients to be free from pain and suffering, it is contrary to federal government laws that prohibit murder or assisted suicide. Although this decision can be called an entrepreneurial move and brings hope to the sick, it ultimately goes against the federal government’s laws. Euthanasia is an illegal practice in the United States under the laws of the Federal Health and Drug and Equipment Safety Act (Marinello et. al, 2023). Thus, accepting euthanasia in Oregon is against federal government laws.
Recreational Marijuana in Colorado
In Colorado, recreational marijuana was legalized at the same time as euthanasia in Oregon. The Colorado Recreational Marijuana Law allows the use of marijuana by those over the age of 21. While many states allow various uses of medical marijuana, recreational use of marijuana in any form is against federal law. Thus, Colorado is defying the laws of the federal government by deciding to recognize marijuana as a legal commodity and to collect taxes on its sales (Marinello et. al, 2023). This law is contrary to federal law, which prohibits the use of marijuana and recognizes it as a narcotic substance.
Support of Controversial Policies Outside the State
Whether a particular state policy receives support outside its home state can be answered in the affirmative. Government innovations that conflict with federal laws are generally supported in other states and internationally. Thus, it can be assumed that other states and possibly the federal government will adopt this policy. Although adopting conflicting policies may benefit the citizens of a particular state, it does not receive support outside of that state. Thus, other state governments and even the federal government are unlikely to adopt this policy in the future.
Both examples demonstrate that conflicting policies can lead to conflict between federal and state government laws. Accordingly, legislators must develop new rules and make decisions that can harmonize state and federal laws (Marinello et. al, 2023). Conflicting policies can lead to problems throughout the country, so their application should be avoided.
Conclusion
In conclusion, innovations in public policy can benefit the people of the respective states. However, they may be contrary to federal government laws. Despite this, these innovations are gaining support in other states and internationally. In the future, people can expect other state and federal governments to accept this policy.
Work Cited
Marinello, Samantha, and Lisa M. Powell. “The Impact of Recreational Cannabis Markets on Motor Vehicle Accident, Suicide, and Opioid Overdose Fatalities.” Social Science & Medicine vol. 320, 2023: 115680.