Use and Regulation of Marijuana

Amendment 64 Use and Regulation of Marijuana, Colorado Ballot Initiative (2012)
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Policy: Amendment 64
A policy is the overall codes by which guide a government in the running of public businesses, or the legislature in its measures. The policy states what to do, who to do it, how to do it, and for whom it is done. Moreover, organizations and governments use the policies in guiding the process of decision-making, regulating and facilitating action, and directing policy implementation. Essential about policymaking are the six steps, which include; problem definition, agenda setting, policy development, implementation, and evaluation. Amendment 64 Use and Regulation of Marijuana, Colorado Ballot Initiative (2012) is one of such policies. The Amendment 64 portrays the six stages of policymaking but also results in inexpert opinion.
The Policy
Amendment 64, Use and Regulation of Marijuana, Colorado Ballot Initiative (2012) is also known as the marijuana legalization act of Colorado. According to Amendment 64, it is legal in Colorado for a person of 21 years and above to possess by purchasing not more than one ounce of marijuana (Amendment 64, 2013). Moreover, the provision also allows growing of up to plants of the commodity. However, the state regulates the use of the drug especially regarding growth and quantification (Johns, 2015). Furthermore, the local authorities do not allow the production, sales, advertisement, and use of the drug unless obtained from the legal outlets by a person of the stipulated age and given within the proposed limits (Amendment 64, 2013).

The controversy in the policy is that marijuana is not legal in the US. The production, possession, sales, advertisement, and use of the drug are illegal in the nation according to the narcotics regulations. However, if a medic prescribes it for medicinal purpose, then it becomes legal but not exceeding a particular quantity. The constitution of the US is at loggerhead with those states that are legalizing the drug through their bylaws. For instance, the Governor of Colorado never supported the idea by the Colorado Legislative Council to push the bill (Fairweather et al., 2014). Moreover, he did not see the sense of legalizing the drug and making policies that do not bridge the pit holes that allow a gap between the constitution of the land and the local policies (Fairweather et al., 2014). Therefore, the legalization of the use of marijuana in Colorado leaves a massive controversy in the legal front.
The policy also highlights the bodies that regulate marijuana in Colorado. They are four in number, and they include; the marijuana cultivation facility, marijuana product manufacturing facility, marijuana testing facility, and marijuana store. The cultivation facility grows process and packages the substance (Fairweather et al., 2014). On the other hand, the manufacturing facility purchase manufactures and packages the commodity while the testing facility analyzes and tests the potency of marijuana. The sales facility obtains the cultivars from the manufacturer and the cultivators and sells it. However, taxation is also carried out on the commodity at 15% and 10% (Fairweather et al., 2014). The proceeds from the taxation are used in educating the society about the drug while it also funds the regulatory programs. Therefore, policy portrays the roles of different entities that are involved in the cultivation, processing, possession, and use of marijuana in Colorado.
Public opinion also takes center stage of the implementation of the policy. Foremost, in 2012 after the voting in of the bill, the governor of Colorado disputed it for being illegal and immoral (Vitiello, 2014). He showed displeasure with the Colorado Legislative Council by stating that he obeys the will of the people through the ballot to choose the use of the substance. However, the Governor said that the initiation of the bill still does not legalize the drug because it contradicts the Federal law. The same sentiments are also visible in the Brandon Coats vs. State case where the defendant is guilty of using the drug out of the workplace and off duty but not in a recreational manner (Vitiello, 2014). Regardless of that, there is controversy in amendment 64, which reveals a gap between the Federal law and the policy (Johns, 2015). Therefore, to cover this gap, the Legislative Council need to amend the plan to conform to the Federal laws without vacuums. However, in a case like the Brandon Coats vs. State, the jurists will apply their jurisprudence, which is only in the Federal law and serves justice.
Policy Development
The Colorado Legislative Council observed that the state could allow the use of marijuana but restrict it to a recreational level. Therefore, the Amendment 64 was table initially but never passed to the voting stage because the public rejected its provisions. The following are the developmental phases of the amendment:
Identification of the problem
The Colorado legislative council identified that the federal laws prohibit the production, possession, sales, advertisement, and use of marijuana. However, there is socio-economic potential in establishing a regulated use of the substance in Colorado. The potential lies in the leisure use of the drug.
Agenda Setting
The Council then set the agenda on the various sections of the regulation that they perceived legal. For instance, they described the people who could use marijuana, who could produce, process, package, and sell it. Moreover, they also came up with the modalities on regulating the use through taxation, pricing, and time of use.
Policy development
The council developed the policy by drafting the provisions and allowing public participation. They also debated on various requirements until a consensus was reached. However, different sections were amended severally until the 2011 version was presented for voting, which it passed and then promulgation.
Implementation
The council under regulation by the four arms of marijuana legalization in Colorado then implemented the policy. Each town in Colorado has these regulatory bodies in operation. Additionally, the tax department is also working in close relationship with the entities to ensure revenue is collected. The revenue is partly used for community education, and some for the regulatory cost.
Evaluation
The evaluation of the policy is ongoing. Various issues arising from court cases reveal the deep gaps in the policy. For instance, the vacuum between the federal law and regulation is a significant problem. Moreover, the regulatory commission cannot track the people using the drug to ensure that they are exclusive to 21 years old and above.
Results
The enactment of Amendment 64 in Colorado has led to a constitutional crisis and regulatory shortfall of the use of marijuana. Foremost, the Federal government laws state that production, possession, sales, advertisement, and use of marijuana is illegal (Vitiello, 2012). However, amendment 64 provides for the usage of the drug by only persons who are above the age of 21 years, and they can only use not more than one ounce (Johns, 2015). Additionally, amendment 64 has no provision on what happens when one uses the drug at work or during the working hours (Vitiello, 2012). Moreover, it is not possible to prove that everyone planting marijuana only plants six plants as the law stipulates. Therefore, amendment 64 cannot control the amounts of crops each user plants.
In conclusion, the Amendment 64 portrays the six stages of policymaking and results into expert opinion. The regulation was put in place so that marijuana is used for recreational activity but at fixed rates in Colorado. Four levels of law exist for the policy. The policy also states the roles of various people in the implementation of the policy. At the same time, the regulation does not fit the Federal Laws hence a stalemate and vacuum. Therefore, the 64 amendment is a typical policy through with weaknesses.
References
Amendment 64 Use and Regulation of Marijuana. 2013. Retrieved online from https://goo.gl/Q5WdodFairweather, S., Pielsticker, M., Garner, B., Holstrom, J., Gray, R., Egger, V., Heil, E. (April 22, 2014). AMENDMENT 64: Report on Cultivation, Manufacturing, Testing And Retail Operations. Town Council Meeting. Avon- Colorado-USA. Retrieved online from https://goo.gl/7WMP4bJohns, T. L. (2015). Managing a policy experiment: Adopting and implementing recreational marijuana policies in Colorado. State and Local Government Review, 47(3), 193-204.
Vitiello, M. (2012). Joints or the Joint: Colorado and Washington Square Off Against the United States. Or. L. Rev., 91, 1009.