My public policy issue is the reform of current marijuana laws in the United States. The problem with the current marijuana laws is that it’s currently illegal to possess any amount of marijuana unless you have a medical marijuana license. The goal of this paper is to inform the reader that marijuana should not only be legal for medicinal use, but also for recreational use. In order to fully understand the rebellious nature my policy issue, one must first understand that marijuana is the single most used illicit drug in the United States today. The subject of marijuana has a very controversial nature because marijuana is considered a drug. However to better understand my policy issue and my reasoning for the legalization of marijuana I will discuss the problem that arises from the issue, and value conflicts. Also I will analyze the different frames and symbols relating to marijuana as well as give a detailed analysis of data on marijuana and causal stories. I will examine people’s different interests, current rules, regulations, and policy tools. Lastly I will discuss facts about marijuana and people’s right regarding the substance. The ongoing question in my policy, as in every other policy issue, is who would most benefit from a change in the current laws? The market or the polis?
The Problem
The main problem regarding my policy issue is the current laws governing the use of marijuana. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) classifies marijuana as a schedule 1 drug. According to the DEA marijuana is in this category because the substance has no currently accepted medical use and has a high potential for abuse. Thus we see the first problem with our current marijuana laws. Being a schedule 1 drug places marijuana in the same category as heroin! Why would a substance that has caused no known deaths be placed in the same group as a heroin? In fact heroin is a drug, according to Dr. Ben Kim; heroin is one of the most dangerous drugs on the streets. Another problem relating to the use of marijuana is that it is currently illegal to possess any amount of marijuana without a medical license. Medical marijuana is only legal in 13 states nationwide. Punishments for illegally possessing the substance vary from state to state. For example, in the state of California, being one of the more lenient states, possession of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana charges the offender with a misdemeanor and $100 fine. Marijuana does indeed have harmful effects. But doesn’t alcohol and tobacco also have negative impacts on the body and mind? This brings me to the final problem with marijuana laws, which is that the government is bias against marijuana use. The problem with the government’s regulations is that it doesn’t treat marijuana with the same guidelines as other harmful drugs (i.e. alcohol and nicotine from tobacco). The reason I’m examining this policy issue is because it’s a very controversial topic in the United States today. In our society today, growing support for the legalization of the substance is currently climaxing. My issue is important because a change in policy will affect every citizen in the United States, whether they use marijuana or not.
Decision makers, legislators, and lobby groups are not taking consideration that marijuana in our culture today is different from the past and will only continue to change. Our nation is slowly drifting away from the old traditional values and morals. Things that may have not been acceptable in earlier years are becoming society’s norms today. Many of the core values from the past are being replaced by new ideas and norms; the social acceptance for marijuana use being one of them. With this being said, we can’t forget about the people who hold the old and more traditional values. This group still holds lots of weight politically in our society today. That’s right I’m referring to the elderly age group of people. The elderly statistically vote the most and also are the largest group to voice their opinions, which poses yet another problem for the reform movement of the marijuana laws. After all, a legislator with faithful elderly voters would find announcing that he had just made marijuana legal a faulty political move. Especially since the drug, which we have been trying to keep out of the hand of our citizens and children, would then be more readily available.
Value Conflicts
Political scientist Deborah Stone defines equity as “who gets what, when and how” (Stone 39). In order to achieve equity in my policy issue, everyone involved, in this case every citizen of the United States would receive the same opportunities to use marijuana without negative repercussions. The most equitable outcome for a change in marijuana laws would be to treat marijuana like other legal drugs. A sense of treating likes alike. Currently there are inequalities regarding marijuana use. Despite the fact that marijuana is the most commonly abused illicit drug in the United States. By creating laws to govern the use and sale of marijuana, like alcohol and tobacco, the American people would be able to use the substance without fear of punishment. Not every legal adult (above age 18 in most states) finds pleasure in using alcohol. So why not cater to those people’s needs by having an alternative? We must understand that the people will only achieve this privilege, or in my opinion this right, when the current policies are changed. You may wonder; how would this change come into place? The laws won’t be transformed until the government realizes that they can benefit from the tax revenue that the substance would bring in (discussed later). The government will be prompted to change the policy upon the realization of the public’s support for reform, as previously mentioned.
The most efficient way to reform the current marijuana laws would be to legalize the substance for recreational use. The government would help to regulate the amount a person possesses and the age of the person possessing marijuana. I think that the government should allow a person, 18 years of age or older, to possess up to 3 oz of cannabis for recreational use. This amount is based on the notion that no one has a legitimate reason to possess anymore than that at one time for personal use. However controlling these factors would be much easier and more efficient than spending taxpayer’s money, as we currently are doing, to persecute people (overcrowding jails with nonviolent offenders) for breaking the current laws. In exchange the government, and the polis, would profit from the money gained through taxation of marijuana. The government funds would benefit from the money saved by freeing our jails of people incarcerated for possession of marijuana charges. The input the government would have to exercise would be minimal compared to the input they are already exerting in restricting the use of the substance. The output would heavily outweigh the input, as it would help our economy. The cost to legalize marijuana for recreational use would cut back government income from current fines such as possession of marijuana fines, yet this aspect of cost would be canceled out by the judicial systems acquittal of people currently overcrowding jails due to marijuana charges. The benefit would outweigh the cost, and help the polis, because the funds saved by freeing up our jails could be used towards more important issues such as education, infrastructure, and national security.
By definition, citizens of the United States are "free" to use marijuana as they please. They are free in the sense that they are no physical constraints stopping someone from using marijuana. However in reality people do not have the freedom to use marijuana, because of the negative repercussions that are enforced by government agencies. A “free” outcome would be citizens having the legal ability to use marijuana for recreational use, without fear of persecution, as long as they are adults. In conclusion, the market model would best help to achieve freedom, because using marijuana is simply people perusing their own interests, and not harming anyone else in the process.
Most people as a desire, not a need, use marijuana. However there are some people who do consider marijuana a need in their everyday lives, not a biological need, but more of a need to feel more comfortable in their lives. Some cancer patients claim that using marijuana reduces their physical and emotional pain, as well as the stress that is a result of chemotherapy; despite the fact the FDA has found that there is no medical use for marijuana. Marijuana is also used by some cancer patients because they may lose weight during chemotherapy and using the substance causes an increase in appetite. I argue that the use of marijuana should not be limited to medicinal use (thirteen states have legalized medical marijuana use: AK, CA, CO, HI, ME, MI, MT, NV, NM, OR, RI, VT, and WA) but should be legal for recreational use as well. This is because people feel more secure when their basic needs are taken care of. In the United States it is the government and their agencies that tend to our needs and securities. A secure outcome for the reform of marijuana laws would be to legalize marijuana for both recreational and medicinal use. By doing so would allow for people who use marijuana to feel secure when using the substance by not having to worry about being penalized. People who use marijuana illegally should not have to fear the government, or fear how they are looked upon by others simply because they use marijuana based on their individual desire or in some cases a need. Security could best be achieved through the market, because reforming the marijuana laws would maximize self-interests. Interests in which I believe the government have not right to put a barrier on. Although changing marijuana policies would help users to feel more secure, would it be fair for the people who are opposed to marijuana reformation?
Changing the current marijuana policies would be a fair outcome for marijuana users and people who are opposed to marijuana use, because the government could place a sin tax on the good. A sin tax is a tax that is generally higher than other taxes and is placed on goods, which are not considered to be a necessity (i.e. alcohol and tobacco). The tax is much higher than other taxes because of the long-term social cost that is associated with using these products. For example, according to the California State Board of Equalization, in Thousand Oaks, California the current sales tax rate is 8.25 percent and the tax rate for distilled spirits is $3.50 per gallon. With this being stated, the government and its people would greatly benefit if these taxes were placed on marijuana because it would be a fair way to treat substances people are opposed to. The sin tax would be the best way to achieve fairness, because marijuana users would be able to legally use the good. Also there would be no negative effect towards people who don't use marijuana. The government would receive a large amount of money from taxing marijuana, thus benefiting both categories of people. The market would benefit from the legalization by new business opportunities such as trades between companies, production competition, or competition in sales. The polis would have new job opportunities and would also have more individual freedoms, as they would have the choice to legally consume marijuana if they wish. If the current marijuana laws were changed, the polis would benefit by having safer neighborhoods throughout the U.S. in generally poverty stuck areas, which many are currently plagued by drug wars.
Symbols and Frames
A symbol is anything that stands for something else. According to Deborah Stone “its meaning depends on how people interpret it, use it, or respond to it” (Stone 137). Synecdoches are symbols in which a part is used to represent the whole. Synecdoches are often used when discussing marijuana, as some people tend to form an opinion on marijuana based on single pieces of information they know. This then causes people to perceive the whole issue to be a certain way. For example, some people in our nation and government view marijuana as a "bad drug" which is bad for both individuals and the entire U.S. population. The United States government, as a whole, helps to frame marijuana as a negative substance towards the people in our society. The most common occurrence of this is the government’s statement that marijuana is a gateway drug, which leads to the addiction of "hard drugs". However people who interpret this are in actuality basing their opinions on facts that are inaccurate. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, in 2007, 14.4 million Americans aged 12 or older used marijuana at least once in the month. However not ever individual of those 14.4 million people are addicted to other drugs. The government tends to aid in helping people form synecdoches by taking extreme examples of cases with marijuana users and blow them out of proportion to make the public bias towards marijuana. People who form these bias synecdoches about marijuana are simply being manipulated, and are not accurately understand the real circumstances.
Priming is another symbol that is used within the marijuana policy issue debate. Priming is when people drawing attention to some aspects of political life at the expense of others. Through this symbol, people often tend to see only one part or side of the issue rather than both. The best example of priming occurs when people label marijuana users as addicts. I’m not denying that there are not people addicted to marijuana; I’m merely saying that not everyone that uses the substance is addicted. There is a huge difference between a physically and mentally addicted person who abuses the drug and a person who uses the substance moderately and recreationally. Not to mention the enormous group of people who experimentally use marijuana. However I don’t think people are so much manipulated by this symbol and example used. This is mainly credited to the “superstars” in our society today who have been seen using marijuana. It’s not very possible that people would label Michael Phelps, 14 time Olympic gold medalist, as an addict simply because they had seen the image of him smoking marijuana.
It’s hard to go a day without hearing, or seeing some type of media, whether it is the news on TV or the radio. Agenda setting is a symbol in which the media tells us what to think about regarding our opinions that we have already formed. This is both a positive and negative symbol regarding my issue. Negative because the media can take issues, regardless of people opinions on the issues, and show the person how important the issue is by how often it is discussed or presented. For example, a TV channel that doesn’t show any information regarding marijuana will allow the issue to often slip from people minds. Thus the issue is not seen as a pressing topic and causes the viewer to believe that the issue isn’t important. On the other hand, agenda setting can be positive. For example, a TV network that shows various updates and programs regarding the progression of the marijuana moment will tell people that the issue is important and they should care about the policy. I believe this is another instance in which the public is being manipulated by the issue. This is because based on the political affiliation of the, for example news station, as the media content varies.
People frame issues in order to sell certain stories to others. Marijuana is often framed in a negative manner. There are two types of frames: episodic and thematic. Episodic frames are generally stories of single occurrences that don’t necessarily represent the truth of an issue, or the “big picture”. This “big picture” is the more accurate interpretation of an issue and is recognized as a thematic frame. The government, media, and other influential groups often take episodic frames and present the stories as a reflection of the whole issue. However in actuality these stories, often negative stories when regarding marijuana, are really only single occurrences and do not in any way reflect the legitimacy of the subject. An example of an episodic frame is someone murdering another person while under the influence of marijuana. The government may frame this tragedy by stating people under the influence of marijuana have a higher potential risk for committing a murder. In actuality this is a single instance and doesn’t correlate to the larger group of people who use marijuana. The public is heavily manipulated when sources frame single marijuana user’s behavior to be the way all marijuana users act.
Words are most commonly used to provide descriptions to people; although they are also used to deceive people. The way someone interprets a word can change very quickly by simply replacing the original word with an adjective. Word choice is a very powerful tool for people who wish to negatively frame marijuana. The scientific term for marijuana is cannabis, which is described as “an annual, dioecious, flowering herb”. However in our society, the word illegal drug is most commonly associated with cannabis. The term, illegal, causes many people to instantly label the substance as appalling. Our government uses the expression “drug” to frame marijuana in a negative way, rather than using the word herb, which sounds harmless. By describing marijuana as a drug our minds automatically relate the substance to other illegal drugs to which we know cause harm. Thus people conclude marijuana as harmful simply because of the word used to describe the substance. The public is maneuvered by words that are used to describe marijuana, which frames the substance and results in an achieve reaction by the framer.
Frames are also achieved when people can connect to another person’s emotional appeal of an issue. Political consultant and pollster Frank Luntz says: “80 percent of our life is emotion, and only 20 percent is intellect”. People who advocate keeping marijuana illegal often try and attack how people emotionally feel about the topic. By appealing to someone’s emotions a framer can sway someone’s opinion based solemnly on what the person feels, not necessarily on the person’s knowledge of the matter. An example of emotionally appealing would be a police officer giving a speech to children at a school and telling the students not to use marijuana. The police officer would be seen as an intimidating figure of high authority to the students, and would deter the kids from using marijuana simply based on his status and not necessarily the content of his speech. This is yet another example of the public being manipulated through use of emotion rather than an understanding of the facts.
Data and Causal Stories
According to NORML, tobacco and alcohol account for about 500,000 annual deaths, despite the fact that they are legal. However there are no accounts for any marijuana related deaths. Alcohol and tobacco related deaths are examples of inadvertent causes. Although the deaths were unintended it is a known fact that the substances are known to cause deaths, thus making casualties predictable. The fact that the government allows individuals to use substances, which are known to cause death, is very appalling. Especially since there are laws restricting the use of marijuana in spite of that fact that it has caused no deaths. If various other legal substances cause an enormous amount of deaths but are permitted by law, then why does the government deem marijuana "harmful" to citizens and to our society?
Another piece of data comes from a 2001 study by the Federal Bureau of Investigation which stated “Police arrest more Americans per year on marijuana charges than the total number of arrestees for all violent crimes combined, including murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault”. This data is an intentional causal story because the government created the laws governing marijuana with the intent to arrest offenders violating the policy. Violent crimes are more problematic to the American people because people’s lives are at risk. The only person that has every physically been hurt using marijuana is the user. This makes me wonder why the government is spending so much time and funds prosecuting nonviolent offenders. After all what’s more of a threat; someone walking around a neighborhood with marijuana in their pocket, or someone who is concealing a weapon? This data can be used to promote my policy issue because it’s safe to assume people care more about public safety than marijuana usage.
The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) conducted a study this year which found that 44% of U.S. adults believed marijuana indeed should be legal for use. This tells a very different story from polls taken from the late 1970s to the mid-1900s in which only about 25% of the adult population was in favor of legalization. Based on these statistics, people’s opinion on the issue has drastically changed over the years. This is an example of an accidental causal story, because the increase in usage was unguided and unintended. Unintended because the reason I advocate policy change is based on the laws the government has imposed on the substance. This ties to my policy because it is now apparent that the public’s view on the reform of marijuana laws is increasing. This data promotes my policy issue because; if the current statistics continue on the same path it is very evident that the public's support for reform will continue to grow.
There are 3 causal stories that can be told regarding the current laws restricting marijuana use; accidental, inadvertent and intentional. As previously mentioned, an accidental causal story is one in which was caused by no one. Accidental causal stories are both unguided and unintended. An inadvertent causal story occurs when something is unintended but predictable. Someone may have caused the issue, however the result was not intentional. The third causal story is intentional, in which someone meant to cause something and the repercussions were both intended and purposeful. This is the causal story which best summarizes the laws against marijuana use. The government created the laws with the intent to keep people from using marijuana. The purpose of the policy was to keep people from causing harm to themselves and to others. People generally see this law as intentional because laws are indeed intended to keep people from acting certain ways and indulging in certain behavior.
Interests
The interests groups pertaining to my policy issue are not only marijuana users but also reform organizations. Reform organizations are groups of people who share common beliefs regarding marijuana and advocate a change in the current laws. The most notable reform groups include: NORML, the Drug Policy Alliance, and Students for Sensible Drug Policy, or SSDP (a nationwide organization of students who support changes in drug policies). However, there are interests which should be involved in my policy issue which are not as obvious as people who are “pro” marijuana legalization. Legalization would not only effect reform organizations, but it would also affect the general public. According to the United States Department of Justice, American taxpayers are spending more than a billion dollars annually to incarcerate citizens who are caught illegally possessing marijuana. Not only would marijuana users be affected by changes in the current laws, but nonusers would be also. This is because there would be a cut back on building jails for nonviolent offenders, which is currently funded by taxpayer’s money. My fellow classmates as well as every other person in the United States should be involved in a change in policy because of the tax revenue that would come from marijuana. The sin tax, as previously mentioned, would provide tax revenue from marijuana which could be used to build new schools, help the infrastructure of states, and even aid in reducing the national debt.
The targets for the reform of marijuana laws are not only marijuana users but everyone in the United States. The targets can be constructed into two groups; marijuana users, and people who don't use marijuana. Both of these groups would drastically be affected by a policy change in the current marijuana laws. My reasoning is quite simple; people who use marijuana would no longer fear negative repercussions from using the substance and would win back an important civil liberty. People who don't use marijuana would benefit from taxes paid by marijuana users. However this can only be achieved by a collective effort from both groups, or targets, that my policy is aimed towards. Yet one problematic factor is the idea of people using their "local knowledge", or what their individual communities think of the specific policy issue.
In Southern California it seem that peoples "local knowledge" towards marijuana and the reform of the current laws is more accepting than other parts of the nation. If it were up to the public, for example in Venice, California, the "local knowledge" of peoples view on marijuana would most likely cause the residents to favor or propose policies that would favor the reform of marijuana laws. However where I'm from, Wimberley, Texas, people who use their "local knowledge" in determining policy issues with marijuana would most likely be opposed to a change in our current marijuana laws. It’s all a matter of what is deemed acceptable in each community, or region. California being a Democratic state with many liberals, and Texas a Republican state with many conservatives. Although I'm not suggesting that all liberals are for the legalization of marijuana and all conservatives opposed. So with this factor being said; the targets could actually be changed from marijuana users and people who don't use marijuana to target groups of liberals and conservatives, or perhaps Democrats and Republicans.
Rules and Tools
The rules or laws, that are currently regulate marijuana make it illegal to possess any amount of the substance unless you have a medical marijuana license. As mentioned, the laws governing the use of marijuana are bad rules for the American people. The laws infringe on civil liberties of citizens who use marijuana in recreation without negative effects on others. However the goal of this rule is to keep people from using marijuana at all. In effect these rules may actually want to make people use marijuana even more, as some find it a thrill to break the laws. Based on the arrest rates previously mentioned, it’s apparent that the laws are not good deterrents to keep people from using marijuana. The rules can be improved by being reformed. Thus allowing people to use marijuana recreationally in a home environment or where it is deemed socially acceptable. The substance can be regulated, like alcohol, by a Government agency which will maintain order in keeping the substance within a new system of rules.
Our current laws regarding the use of marijuana involve sanctions for people who use marijuana illegally (without a medical marijuana license). For many years it has been clear to the American people that if you use marijuana illegally, and are detected by a law enforcement officer of a kind, that you will have negative consequences (fines, probation, and jail). Inducements would solve many problems regarding the recreational use of marijuana. By inducing such behavior all citizens could gain from the use of the substance. I'm not inferring that marijuana users are the ones necessarily being rewarded for using marijuana, though we can't forget exercising civil liberties, but as previously mentioned everyone would benefit from the taxes that would be levied on the good. This brings me to my idea that regulatory tools would best suit my policy issue.
We are already spending way too much taxpayer money regulating the use of marijuana, so regulating the legal use of marijuana would cut back on these costs. However you may ask yourself, what would be the conflict of legalizing marijuana? The answer is people would be causing harm to themselves (as if alcohol doesn't cause harm to oneself?). Not to mention that we are currently causing harm on every American citizen who has the burden of paying for sanctions against marijuana users. By regulating the recreational use of marijuana, both groups would benefit from the results.
Facts and Rights
The idea I hold on the reform of marijuana laws in not necessarily a fact. The notion that I believe marijuana should be legal for medicinal use in not factual because it is not believed and understood by everyone to be true. A fact that I do pose to you is that marijuana is just as bad for the brain and organs as alcohol and tobacco. According to the "experts", the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, "Alcohol–damaged liver cells allow excess amounts of these harmful byproducts to enter the brain, thus harming brain cells". Marijuana harms the body as well in various other ways. According to a scholarly article done by Janet Joy and Allison Mack, "Although free of nicotine, marijuana smoke certainly pollutes the lungs. And since tobacco smoking has been linked to respiratory injury, cancer, emphysema, heart disease, complications of pregnancy, low birth weight, and other ills, it makes sense to worry whether smoking marijuana might prove equally harmful". I know these statements to be true simply because I'm taking into consideration the experts findings on the effects of marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco. Though it’s not a fact that marijuana should be legal, it is factual to believe that the legal substances alcohol and tobacco are bad for the body, as is the illegal substance marijuana. If the effects on the body are all harmful, why not treat laws regarding the use of these substances the same? Or perhaps, why not make the use of tobacco and alcohol illegal as well?
Freedom of expression is a right that relates to the legalization of marijuana. Smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol are ways some people express their emotions in life today. Although this example is privilege, people associate using theses substances as a right that they have. People who use marijuana deserve this “right” as well as people who use other harmful substances. Using marijuana correlates to the first amendment as does alcohol and tobacco. However not everyone agrees that this is a right people should have. The government is obviously a group of people who don’t believe that using marijuana should be a right. Government expresses their feelings about marijuana by enforcing the laws put into place which punish people who use and possess the substance.
Conclusion
