A$.$ Initial Post $[$DUE NLT $10$:$00$ pm CST on Fri. $01-26-24].$ In the "Reply" box below, provide your initial post $($

in at least $500$ words$)$ in response to the prompts that follow with regard to the law, the facts, your commentary, and at least one similar U$.$S$.$ business law claim. Your initial post must include information $($referenced with appropriate APA in$-$text and APA full citations$)$ that you have found in:

Cheeseman $11$th edition $($for the law$)$:

the "Sources Provided" above $($for the facts$)$ ; and

at least two relevant and appropriate sources $($articles or books $($other than a textbook$)$ you have found online through the SLU Libraries databases $($lib$.$slu.edu$),$ that are discussing U$.$S$.$ legal issues relevant to this topic, including using at least one of those sources to support your discussion of at least one $$Similar Claim.$)$ SLUth Search Plus on the library home page is a good place to start this research. $[$See NOTE A below for more information on what are $$relevant and appropriate sources.$]$

$1.$ The Law: A brief explanation of the federal Supremacy Clause and the prohibitions of the Controlled Substances Act. $[$You must use Cheeseman $11$th edition and the two videos as sources for this explanation. Also: Using any other sources for your explanation of $$The Law$$ will not count as either of your two relevant and appropriate sources.$]$

$2.$ Facts: From your viewing of the two videos, briefly summarize the facts around the conflict that has arisen between the federal Supremacy Clause and the federal Controlled Substances Act on one side and the permissive uses of cannabis in the various state medical and recreational cannabis statutes on the other side. $[$You must use the two videos in "Sources Provided" above as sources for your summary of the facts.$]$

$3.$ Commentary: Briefly summarize your own thoughts with regard to the following: $[$Note: You may cite any information you found in the "Sources Provided." Using one or more $$relevant and appropriate sources$$ as part of your responses here is appropriate, but not necessary.

a$.$ What are the risks that owners of the various types of cannabis businesses are taking in view of this conflict between federal and state laws? and

b$.$ What changes, if any, might be considered to current federal cannabis laws?

$4.$ Similar Claims: Briefly summarize the facts of at least one other U$.$S$.$ case concerning a claim that a state law was in conflict with the federal Supremacy Clause as described in an article or book that you have found in any of the relevant and appropriate sources $($as explained in NOTE A below$).$ Although future Discussion Boards this semester will limit you to only very recent $$similar cases,$$ for this first Discussion Board, you may summarize the facts of any relevant Supremacy Clause case from any time in U$.$S$.$ history as long as that case is discussed in an article or book in a publication you can access through the Pius Library's databases $[$For guidance in finding an article $$ See: the SLU Libraries databases $($lib$.$slu.edu$)$ and Judy Geczi's "LEB I $($MGT $2000)$ Business Resources Guide $($Geczi $01-08-24)"$ document and her video that are posted on Canvas.$]$

You may choose to satisfy the requirement of using $$at least two relevant and appropriate sources$$ by discussing two such similar U$.$S$.$ business law claims, but each claim must be a distinct claim and from a separate $$relevant and appropriate source.$$ If you find two articles that discuss the same similar claim, you may cite each of them in your discussion of that claim, but that second article about that same claim will not count as one of $$at least two relevant and appropriate sources$$ required for this Discussion Board assignment.