Re: When does state law supersede federal law?

[Guest guest]

Dear m1nho,

I think by supreme you mean 'rule'.

Let me say this, the Federal law is be applied to all states.

However a state may make a state law that is more strict, what is known as more

stringent.

A state may not make a law that is less strict.

Allow me to illustrate with a non-pharmacy law:

Let us say that the Fed Law says no one in the US (in any state) can drive

faster than 100 miles per hour.

So All states apply that law, no problem.

But one state, lets say New York says no one in the state of New York may dirve

faster than 80 miles per hour.

And in addition, the state has posted speed limits some are 15 mph, some are

25mph, others are 35 mph and 55 mph and 75 mph and in certain areas 80 mph

All of which are less than 100 mph. So by the federal law if I visited NY and

drove 100 mph I would be breaking that state's law, but not the Federal law. A

state trouper could not arrest me aslong as I was going the posted speed limit.

But if I was going over 80mph any where in NY I could be arrested by a state

trouper even though the Fed law is 100 mph max.

BUT there is a Federal LAW that says that a state has the right to make a

Federal Law more stringent and that is the LAW that must APPLY.

So it is like when in Rome do as the Romans do. Follow the law of the land.

State law must comply, may be more strict/stringent than Federal Law, but my not

break the Federal Law.

So if a state, let's say Texas wanted to pass a law that the fastest one may

drive a car in Texas is 140 mph, this would be less stringent than the Federal

Law which is: no more than 100 miles per hour. This state law would be breaking

the Federal and by all rights the Federal police could arrest you and you would

be tried in a federal court and if found guilty may be given a sentence in a

federal prison. In addition, the Federal Executive Branch, Legislative and

Judiciary branches would have to deal with this states infraction.

Let us take a look at Federal Pharmacy Laws of Controlled Substance Cough Syrup

with codeine

The Fed law allows for this drug to be sold over the counter at the discretion

of the pharmacist, purchaser must be 18 and sign a log book. There are a few

states where codiene in small quantities(strength) can be sold over the counter,

with a signature to someone over 18 yrs old etc. But most pharmacists do not

want to deal with it or sell it so they may chose not to carry it. It is kept

manly behind the counter and one would ask for it. What makes it considered OTC

is that a prescription in small quantitie is not needed. I believe Utah, Ohio

and 2 southern states have or had this state law. So the federal Law said it was

okay, but MOST states placed it in a Class V also known as a Schedule V which

needed a controlled substance prescription.

Again the MOST Strict law will apply. The case above says Federal laws says a

pharmacy can keep specific low strength of codiene cough syrup over the counter,

some states go with that, but keep it behind the counter/sign log book etc, and

most states make it more stringent a Class V must have a C/S prescritpion. So in

these cases the state law applies as it is more stringent.

Let us try to apply the more stringent laws to Marijuana! Confused? probably

won't be after you read this:

Now if we apply this to Marijuana laws:

Federal Law says NO Marijuana at all, not for personal or medical use or

trafficking drugs across the boarder etc. It is a Class I drug - illegal to

possess or sell.

Then we see states making more lenient laws as uprising to the Federal law that

allow the people of a given state to hold medical marijuan laws. So in that

state (CA, New Mexico etc there are over 14 preobably 17 such states) if a

person is caught with an amount that the state is okay for possession of medical

marijuana AND a VALID state marijuana card by a state, county or city police

officer then he or she CAN NOT BE ARRESTED by that police officer. BUT again

could be arrested by a Federal Police Officer.

By the way former President Bush sent out his Federal Police to CA to do raids

while in office. On the other hand, President Obama made a public announcement

shortely after being elected that he would not go after individuals who have

amounts of marijuana for medical use or personal use granted by state laws, but

would go after trafficking marijuana and growing marijuana. He would not

interfere with the individual who posseses and uses within the state's law in

which they live.

I do hope this helps. It is NOT cut and dry! You can say that the Federal reigns

all the time if you understand that there is a Federal Law that states that

whichever law is more stringent Fed or State will apply as the law of that land.

This allows for the state law to apply over the Fed law at times.

However the PTCB will not ask you that directly. But the answer when NOT given

specifics is always " the law which is more strict or stirngent will apply. "

IF you are given a scenario, then the PTCB may expect you to know a specific Fed

Law and give you the specific state law. You could be asked to compare them and

choose which law would apply. If so, you would then decide up on the law that is

more stringent. If the state law is the SAME as the Federal Law then the Federal

law applies.

You may be given BOTH the actual Fed Law and the State law to compare instead of

you having to know the Fed Law. But I would say in most cases PTCB would expect

you to know Fed Law.

While I would NOT expect PTCB to ask this Which law Fed or state applies in the

US with regards to Marijuana?

Answer is the Fed law is more stringent therefore it does apply.

Meaning if you possessed any marijuana you could be arrested by federal police

and prosecuted in federa court and if found guilty sentenced to a federal

prision

Hope this helps,

Respectfully,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS

Founder/Owner

>

> I have different opinions from various pharmacists that i've asked this

question to.

>

> Which law is supreme, federal? or state? and when do they supersede one

another?

>

> Some pharmacists in retail say that state is supreme, and some administrative

pharmacists say that federal is supreme.

>

> Please advise so that i can source this correctly for my exam.

>

> Thanks,

>

>

[Guest guest]

Take a look at these FAQ's from Washington State Board of Pharmacy:

" Is medical marijuana legal in Washington? I've heard conflicting answers to

this question.

Marijuana possession is illegal in Washington. The medical marijuana law,

Chapter 69.51A, provides protection from arrest or other criminal sanctions for

qualified patients and designated caregivers who are complying with the law.

People who qualify have a valid reason to possess a 60-day supply of marijuana.

However, medical marijuana is not legal under federal law. There is no

protection for people who are arrested or charged under federal law. "

Here is another that may help:

" I heard the Obama Administration has legalized medical marijuana. Is that true?

No. U.S. Deputy Attorney General Cole announced updated formal guidelines

for federal prosecutors in states that have laws allowing the use of medical

marijuana. The guidelines do not legalize medical marijuana. The president

directed federal prosecutors to consider appropriate medical use when making

criminal charging decisions. The guidelines only provide direction for

prosecutors when reviewing medical marijuana cases. "

http://www.doh.wa.gov/hsqa/medical-marijuana/FAQmore.htm#21

Again I hope this helps,

Respectfully,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS

Founder/Owner

> >

> > I have different opinions from various pharmacists that i've asked this

question to.

> >

> > Which law is supreme, federal? or state? and when do they supersede one

another?

> >

> > Some pharmacists in retail say that state is supreme, and some

administrative pharmacists say that federal is supreme.

> >

> > Please advise so that i can source this correctly for my exam.

> >

> > Thanks,

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

in general its the ne that is more strict that is " king "  

 

I have different opinions from various pharmacists that I've asked this

question to.

Which law is supreme, federal? or state? and when do they supersede one another?

Some pharmacists in retail say that state is supreme, and some administrative

pharmacists say that federal is supreme.

Please advise so that i can source this correctly for my exam.

Thanks,

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

You are most welcome!

I removed your private information from the post to protect you and to protect

me.

Hope this helps,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS

Founder/Owner

>

> Thank you for this thorough and clear explanation!

>

> M. Kim

>

>

> Phone number removed for privacy and liability reasons

>

> Re: When does state law supersede federal

> law?

>

> Dear m1nho,

>

> I think by supreme you mean 'rule'.

>

> Let me say this, the Federal law is be applied to all states.

> However a state may make a state law that is more strict, what is known as

> more stringent.

> A state may not make a law that is less strict.

>

> Allow me to illustrate with a non-pharmacy law:

>

> Let us say that the Fed Law says no one in the US (in any state) can drive

> faster than 100 miles per hour.

>

> So All states apply that law, no problem.

> But one state, lets say New York says no one in the state of New York may

> dirve faster than 80 miles per hour.

> And in addition, the state has posted speed limits some are 15 mph, some are

> 25mph, others are 35 mph and 55 mph and 75 mph and in certain areas 80 mph

>

> All of which are less than 100 mph. So by the federal law if I visited NY

> and drove 100 mph I would be breaking that state's law, but not the Federal

> law. A state trouper could not arrest me aslong as I was going the posted

> speed limit. But if I was going over 80mph any where in NY I could be

> arrested by a state trouper even though the Fed law is 100 mph max.

>

> BUT there is a Federal LAW that says that a state has the right to make a

> Federal Law more stringent and that is the LAW that must APPLY.

>

> So it is like when in Rome do as the Romans do. Follow the law of the land.

> State law must comply, may be more strict/stringent than Federal Law, but my

> not break the Federal Law.

>

> So if a state, let's say Texas wanted to pass a law that the fastest one may

>

>

>

>