The Impact of Marijuana Policies in the United States

“THE IMPACT OF MARIJUANA POLICIES IN THE UNITED STATES”
Name
Institution
Abstract
For many years, marijuana has been a topic of discussion in the United States. This paper will discuss the various marijuana policies for states which are opposed to the idea of legalization of marijuana and those which have gone ahead to pass recreational and medical marijuana policies. Furthermore, federal law and the reasons for the drug remaining illegal under the federal law will be discussed alongside the effects this has had to the United States. The conflicts that exist between federal and state laws with regard to marijuana will also be a point of focus. Also, the war on drugs by the federal government will also be reviewed so as we can understand the history of marijuana laws and policies. Moreover, this paper will show that the marijuana policies have done more harm than good and alternative options will be explored of reducing the use of marijuana and also try and gauge the future of the United States.
Introduction
The cultivation of Marijuana in the United States has been around from the 17th Century. The plant gained fame and was given the courtesy of being documented in a medical reference book. The view by the public of the drug came to a sudden change in the 20th century when certain movements decided to curb its use in the society as it was seen to have adverse effects. Later on, their cries for the regulation of the drug was heard, and laws were passed that prohibited the non-medical use of marijuana.

With the passing of these laws, the medical use of the drug was still legal to 1970; then an Act was formulated by the federal government which is known today as the “Federal Controlled Substance Act.” Where substances were grouped in schedules depending on their threat level and frequency of abuse by the general public. Marijuana was grouped under Schedule I, meaning it had a high threat level and so physicians would now be prohibited from offering prescriptions of the drug to their patients. Throughout the paper, we will show how the marijuana policies and laws have done more harm than good in the United States.
In the recent years, there has been controversy on the legalization of marijuana. The advocates and opposers of such initiatives have come up with claims about the matter. Where supporters are claiming the endeavor will bring in more tax revenue, increase transport safety, lower the level of crime, improve public health, reduce expenditures by the criminal justice system and also stimulate the growth of the economy. On the hand, the opposers argue that legalizing marijuana will increase its abuse together with other drugs and also alcohol use; it will increase the crime level, reduce the traffic safety, increase health related problems and also reduce the academic reach of the youth hence turning them to being hopeless and useless (Lloyd, O’Malley & Bachman, 1981).
In the present day, marijuana has been observed to be the highly abused illicit drug among adolescents. The uses of marijuana for recreation and its possession still remain illegal in quite a number of the states and also under the federal law. Despite this, a good number of states have made marijuana legal for medical purposes, where physicians make recommendations. The big part of the states aiming at legalizing marijuana have allowed for also minors to have access to it but with tight regulations. These same states have banned marijuana being sold to the youth. Even if this is the case, the mere change of the legal state of the drug in the society is enough risk to make it accessible to the youth who will then abuse and suffer the consequences that come with ingesting the drug (Lloyd, O’Malley & Bachman, 1981).
Of the states that have fully made marijuana legal in USA, the states of “Colorado” alongside “Washington” have stood out as the most dramatic as they made the decision in 2012 through a ballot vote accompanied by the states of “Alaska” together with “Oregon” two years later (Dills, Goffard & Miron, 2016).
Between the four, Colorado took the first leap to lower the penalties connected with marijuana offenses in the year 1975, and then prompted the possession of a small quantity of marijuana, for example, an ounce, to be categorized as a petty offense. This had the purpose of lowering the use and possession of marijuana. In the year 2000, a law was passed that allowed the medical uses of the drug. Patients were required to possess a license to be able to get prescriptions, and each physician was required to keep the issuing of marijuana to less than five patients. Although this ratio helped to curb the spread of marijuana in the state, this ratio was later abandoned by the “Colorado Board of Health” in 2009. This mistake made the number of licensed patients and dispensaries dealing in the prescription of marijuana to increase drastically. In 2012, Colorado climbed the ladder in marijuana legalization, by passing Amendment 64 which got the support of 55 percent of the voters, hence claiming a position as being one of the first two states to fully make the use of marijuana both medical and recreational legal. This authorized the Colorado residents of age 21 and above to be protected under the law to cultivate a maximum of six plants and also buy small quantities of the drug, about an ounce. Due to this, taxes and license fees were imposed on the whole marijuana buying and selling activities together with requirements that were to be followed by the people involved (Dills, Goffard & Miron, 2016).
       Same as Colorado, the same year, Washington went to the ballots to legalize the recreational use of Marijuana with 56 percent of the voters for the “ballot initiative 502”. This required the setting up of regulatory bodies to control the Marijuana industry in the state. Taxes were also imposed on marijuana producers and retailers. In the same spirits after long years of defeats, full legalization of marijuana was attained in the state of Oregon in 2014, after voters approved “Measure 91”, officially known as “Oregon Legalized Marijuana Initiative” with 56 percent supporting the initiative (Blachly, 1976). This measure same as the many others from the two first states made the recreational uses of the drug legal for persons above the age of 21. Possession of dried marijuana to the maximum of eight ounces together with the growing of four plants was permitted. The “Oregon Liquor Commission” it was bestowed with regulating the activities related to the drug. The state then passed laws such as the 17 percent in taxes for marijuana retailers for the state and additional 3 percent for local jurisdictions (Dills, Goffard & Miron, 2016).
       The fourth state where legalization of marijuana was termed as dramatic, was the state of Alaska. The debate concerning the marijuana policy began in the year 1972. This was brought about by a court case of Ravin v. State where it was passed that the possession of marijuana in one’s home is private and should be protected under the constitution. This ruling would then be a basis for many similar cases that involved marijuana in the coming years. In 1975, marijuana offenses were termed not to be a criminal offense and later in 1998, legalization of the drug for medical practices by doctors and physicians came through. In 2000, advocates in the state then turned to the legalization of recreational uses of marijuana, but the initiative failed. In 2004, a second initiative was proposed but faced rejection from the public. Finally, in 2014, the third initiative was passed with 53 percent of voters supporting it. A board was later formed to regulate the marijuana industry in the state and also impose taxes (Dills, Goffard & Miron, 2016).
In this controversy of the legalization of marijuana, some states together with movements and programs have put their foot forward to discourage the issue. One such movement actively seen to take part is the “Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana” (CALM). It fights for the laws making marijuana illegal under federal law to be upheld. It also states, the studies conducted by the FDA for decades have proved that marijuana smoking has no medical benefit and in fact, more harm can be inflicted by the drug. Furthermore, concerning the success of the Proposition 215- (where physicians and care providers tasked with cultivating and recommending the use of marijuana to patients who had medical complications that the traditional methods were unable to treat, were given a haven from criminal laws that tend to prohibit the practices) , which was considered a huge victory for the use of marijuana to help ailing patients, CALM states the whole event was misinterpreted by the fact that marijuana has medical benefits and by ingesting it, the adverse effects will be close to negligible(Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana, 2006).
With regards to the opposition of legalizing marijuana by the states, some have put measures in place, where possession of the illicit substance can still make you spend time behind bars. In the state of Nebraska, marijuana has been seen to find its way through Colorado hence resulting in high cost of law enforcement. Due to this, the state is among the many that are suing Colorado under the federal law for making marijuana legal. Also, Oklahoma being a member of the team suing Colorado, its laws on marijuana have become very tight, in the case that the smallest quantity in possession or sale of the substance can lead to life in prison. In 2015, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey passed a statement that legalization of marijuana will never happen as long as he is around (Gray, 2015).
Another state with severe punishments for the drug is Idaho, where being found in possession of just marijuana paraphernalia can earn you a misdemeanor. In the state of Delaware, the measures are so tight, that possession of marijuana can lead to one not being able to adopt a child, hence being one of the many states that are practicing this measure. In the states of Alabama and Utah, there has been the passing of law to allow for the use of cannabidiol- a specific oil extract from marijuana for patients with recommendations from neurologists for treatments such as epilepsy. Even though a law has been passed for the use of the oil, you have to provide a solid defense for its possession, or you face going to jail. Attempts to legalize marijuana in the states of South Carolina, Louisiana and Arkansas have failed miserably and so any possession of the drug results to a jail term (Gray, 2015).
       Even with the continued debate of advocates and opposers of whether to make marijuana legal or not and also with the drug being used to treat patients in 40 states, the federal law has still put the drug under Schedule I – dangerous to the human population. Through the “Controlled Substances Act” (CSA) (“21 U.S.C. § 811”), the federal government is able to regulate drugs in the United States. The Act has hence labeled marijuana as a drug that is harmful to the general population, and so its medical uses are non-existent. The application of these laws is for people who grow, possess and distribute huge amounts of the drug. Hence, these laws are termed to be far-reaching for individuals who are found guilty. Furthermore, doctors found prescribing marijuana to patients under the federal law are bound to be arrested, and they can only do so under the First Amendment (FDA, 2009).
Moreover, the federal law takes effect in Washington D.C and all over the United States. In view of the fact that it doesn’t apply only on federal property, it has faced conflict with the state laws. To that effect, Federal agencies submitted guidelines and policy memos to help manage the squabble. In 2013, a guidance memo brought forward by the “ Department of Justice (DOL) aiming at advising the prosecutors that dealing with marijuana cases concerning States was not the best move and hence not a priority. Fortunately, the memo brought key points for prosecutors to ensure that the federal law and its priorities are enforced which were in line with most medical marijuana program regulations. This ensured that any business operating under a license was expected to follow the guidelines (Department of Justice, 2006).
Firstly, these guidelines ensure that no distribution of marijuana is to be done to minors in the states. Secondly, the drug money obtained from the selling of marijuana should not be used to finance criminal activities in the society. Thirdly, in states where marijuana has been made legal, this change in law should not be abused to smuggle and run other drug operations as this will lead to incarceration. Fourthly, in the conducting of marijuana businesses, no illegal weapon should be in sight nor should there be any commotion. As earlier stated, Nebraska and a couple of other states were suing Colorado for the fact that marijuana found its way out of Colorado which has legalized marijuana but the other states had not. This led to a budget change in the law enforcement department by employing more personnel and distributing more resources to control the situation. This form of situation is discouraged under the guidelines provided. In addition, the growing of marijuana on public lands and its effects on the environment are discouraged together with possession of the drug on federal property. Finally, driving having ingested the drug is a felony (Department of Justice, 2006).
Basing our argument on the tight federal laws on marijuana, it is evident that the federal government is completely against marijuana use in every possible way. This didn’t start recently; America has been at war with drugs for almost a century. Of the 44 Presidents of the United States, four have declared war on drugs (Rosenberger, 1996). Unfortunately, no significant achievements have been made to quantify a win. As we can see, drug peddlers and abusers are continuing to crowd the courts, health institutions, and prisons. It has been seen that the drug practices are filled with violence which affects the community. Moreover, children belonging to drug abusers, being parents, have been seen to go through a rough patch in the event the law catches up to their illegal drug practices. The only people who have been seen to benefit from this war are drug peddlers and crime gangs (Rosenberger, 1996).
The battle between the United States and drugs has been so severe that through the formation of the “Federal Bureau of Narcotics “in 1930, decided to engage in propaganda as a way to curb the abuse of drugs. This comprised of myths and horror tales being spread around about the drugs. Marijuana was associated with events of rape, murder, and insanity. “Harry J. Anslinger,” said that marijuana made individuals become violent and angry hence committing numerous crimes (McWilliams, 1990). Between the 1940 and 1950, people lacked faith in the government and put deafly ears to their continuous warnings on drugs. This did not stop the federal government. By 1971, the then President Nixon declared war on drugs and he declared it as America’s number one enemy and in order to defeat it, a new strategy had to be laid out. This included attacking from both sections, that is, the supply and demand (Sharp, 1994).
With all the efforts and numerous ideas, the big question is: Will the United States ever win this war on drugs? With everything being level, everyone will concur that drugs bring no good in the society and they have severe medical complications. They break families, lead to loss of jobs, destruction of lives, but is fighting them and using a lot of resources to wipe them out of existence even worth it? Is this even possible? Is there any satisfaction from making marijuana legal or even trying to regulate its use? If we term illegal drugs as so harmful to people’s health, then why are many American prisons filled with people who have been arrested for their use? If at all people want to use the drugs, they will devise measures and ways so that the same drugs the prisons are preventing them from accessing, will be found being sold in the same prisons. The war on drugs faces a problem of “wrong-targeting” whereby the people being focused on are the end users and not the real people behind the supply and logistics of the whole drug operations.
America faces a huge increase in prison population. Why? In 1997, 717,720 Americans were put in prison for rape, murder, aggravated assault and robbery(combined).On the other hand, 695,200 got arrested for crimes only related to marijuana(Radosh, 2008). The figures on a number of marijuana offenses shouts more. Clearly showing that this war has already failed. President Carter once said that the punishment imposed on drug offenses should not be more catastrophic than the effects of the drug (Carter, 1977). This clearly defines the situation of the laws against marijuana for personal consumption. In that, the person smoking marijuana should not be considered as a criminal, but the use of marijuana should be continually discouraged at all times. In the states that have waived criminal penalties for the use of marijuana, for example, Oregon, and California, they have not recorded any levels of more marijuana being used (Blachly, 1976).
Another significant problem with United States’ present situation is the level of expenses. The prosecution and detaining drug offenders is expensive. It is observed that more money is being used to construct prisons as compared to schools. In the year 1998, a total of 16 billion dollars was used in federal funding to battle the enemy known as “drugs.” That is an astounding number, and it seems the fruits of hard work don’t go along with the effort and resources pumped into the venture. Supposing all this time and money is being pumped into education, prevention measures and treatment, and the numbers keep on rising, then another option must be found. As unscrupulous and hilarious as the legalization of marijuana may seem to some, all the evidence and opinions seem to give a green light on the matter. Hence it deserves some thought. With no clear solution to the matter eating up the United States, it will remain in a downward spiral with no hope of finding its way up.
What is the way forward? It is evident that crucial steps have to be taken. It is to my belief that the first step is for the administration to admit the current system is bogus and that it outrightly doesn’t work. The next step is to collect data on the streets and schools on people’s opinions and figure out if the outreach, awareness, and education work. Additionally, the reason for people to try drugs and the biggest influences on a child into smoking marijuana should also be investigated. Also, the United States should try and drop from their high horse and borrow a page from other countries, for example, Holland, who decriminalized drugs and had significant results thereafter.
The United States should see reason for change. It should realize that having changes to their policies is not a show of weakness or defeat, but fighting a costly battle with no success for many years is not a show of bravery either. What is evident is that drug use should be reduced, the rate of murders should be lowered, and the number of people going to jail for marijuana offenses should be decreased. What is the best option for America, keep incurring costs and infectiveness with prohibition, or come up with policies that tend to redefine the way of solving the problem.
As the idea is to keep kids from ingesting marijuana, then more money should be spent on schools instead of arresting and prosecuting drug offenders. In the long run, the number of adults using marijuana will reduce.  Education is compulsory, but the prosecution of petty offenses is a waste of resources and entirely pointless. Hence, marijuana should not be made illegal, but steps should be taken to discourage people from consuming it. The fight against drugs has failed. With its existence, United States has used almost $10 billion a year on prisoners, spent billions every year on law enforcement, violence and deaths have occurred, there has been no regard for civil rights and also criminal gangs have benefited. Weighing the facts, the war on drugs has no basis for its existence.
Going back to the time of prohibition, it was seen that over “black market ‘shine,” the bootleggers and the authorities would have a shoot-out. The illegal speakeasies saw good business and the profits were used to finance crime. When prohibition ended, taxes were imposed on alcohol, and this gave the State revenue. Will marijuana use skyrocket? Probably. But going down is likely as there would be no value added in having new members join the smoking club. Providing protection for marijuana users against themselves makes it costly to the rest of the population in terms of dollars, security, and freedom.
Lastly, the drug war with respect to marijuana is not bringing results. All efforts that have been made have resulted in an expensive venture instead of a decrease in the possession and usage of marijuana. The current laws on marijuana need to be relaxed, and alternatives need to be considered with immediate effect, or else a solution may never be found.
References
Blachly, P. H. (1976). “Effects of Decriminalization of Marijuana in Oregon,” “Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,” 282, 405-415.
Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana. (2006). Welcome. Retrieved from https://calmusa.org/Carter, J. (1977).  “Drug Abuse Message to the Congress.” Retrieved from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=7908.
Department of Justice. (2006). “Crime in the United States 2006”, Washington, D.C.: “Federal Bureau of Investigation,” U.S. Department of Justice.
Dills, A., Goffard, S., & Miron, J. (2016). “Dose of Reality: The Effect of State Marijuana. Legalizations.” Retrieved from
https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/dose-reality-effect-state-marijuana-legalizations.
Gray, J. (2015). “10 States Where Support is Lowest for Legalizing Marijuana.” Retrieved from
http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/legalizing-marijuana-states-support/2015/04/02/id/636148/ c, J. D., c, P. M., and Bachman, J. D. (1981). “Marijuana Decriminalizations: The Impact on Youth, 1975-1980,” “Monitoring the Future Occasional Paper #13.”
McWilliams, J. C.  (1990).  The Protectors: “Harry J. Anslinger and the Federal Bureau Of Narcotics”, 1930-1962.  Newark: “University of Delaware Press.”
Radosh, P. F. (2008). “War on Drugs: Gender and Race Inequities in Crime Control Strategies.” Criminal Justice Studies 21.2: 167-78. Web.
Rosenberger, L. R.  (1996).  America’s Drug War Debacle.  Brookfield, VT: Ashgate
Publishing Co.
Sharp, E. B. (1994) .“The Dilemma of Drug Policy in the United States.”  New York,
NY: HarperCollins College Publishers.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2009). “Controlled Substances Act.” Retrieved from
http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/ucm148726.htm.