Position Paper

Running head: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 1

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 2

Historical perspective

Ashley A. Mitchel

Rick Humphress

Public Policy Analysis

July 20, 2014

Historical perspective

For over a decade now, many researchers have debated on the legal use of medicinal marijuana. Many studies have been conducted on cancer patients and other people with medical issues whose ailments have lessened through marijuana treatments. In addition to this, many people have used marijuana as a recreational drug and are still using the harmful drug daily. Twenty three states have legalized the use of medical marijuana. “Since 1996, 22 states and Washington, DC have passed laws allowing smoked marijuana to be used for a variety of medical conditions. It is important to recognize that these state marijuana laws do not change the fact that using marijuana continues to be an offense under Federal law.  Nor do these state laws change the criteria or process for FDA approval of safe and effective medications (The White House, United States Government, 2012)

“Many of these state medical marijuana laws originated in order to create a legal defense to state criminal possession laws or to remove state criminal penalties for purported medical use of marijuana.” Since then, many have evolved into state authorization for state-based production and distribution of marijuana for purported medical purposes. These state laws vary greatly in their criteria and implementation, and many states are experiencing vigorous internal debates about the safety, efficacy, and legality of their marijuana laws. Many local governments are even creating zoning and enforcement ordinances that prevent marijuana dispensaries from operating in their communities.

The two states that are under this study are the state of Arizona and the state of South Carolina. Arizona has passed a law to legalize medical marijuana in 2010 with about 50% of votes. In Arizona the legal limit for a person to have one ounce of useable marijuana 6 plants (3 mature, 3 immature. In Arizona there is a program that people has to register to medical marijuana and renew their card annually.

In South Carolina there is still a fight to have marijuana legalized for medical purposes. State law allows marijuana, “A law passed back in 1980, says: SECTION 44-53-650. Director to obtain and distribute marijuana. (a) The director shall obtain marijuana through whatever means he deems most appropriate consistent with federal law. (b) The director shall cause such analyzed marijuana to be transferred to various locations throughout the State that provide adequate security as set forth in federal and state regulations for the purpose of distributing such marijuana to the certified patient in such manner as is consistent with federal law. The patient shall not be required to pay for such marijuana but the director may charge for ancillary medical services provided by the department to compensate the department for the cost, if any, of securing such marijuana, and providing it to the patient (Davis et al., 2014)

There has been evidence that marijuana has been a drug that has helped many people with their medical issues such as cancer and also helped pain for most people. Both stated want to use marijuana as a controlled substance like hydrocodone as long as it’s used for medical issues. The issue with marijuana is that many people thinks that it will not benefit people are that the drug is not a controlled substance and should not be used as a controlled substance.

With the legalization of marijuana for the state of Arizona it has generated more revenues and also more people are being able to get the proper treatment that is need for their medical conditions. Also, the prison and jail rates have decreased because those crimes for using marijuana have decreased. In the state of South Carolina the legalization of marijuana will help the state to generate more tax dollars and the prison and jail rate will decrease. Half of the population in Arizona was for the legalization for marijuana and the other fifty percent was against it. In South Carolina their still debating on the reason to legalized marijuana about forty percent of the people feel that marijuana should be legalized. In light of all this information, the legalization of marijuana would be quite a defeat in their investment. It is not only the amount of money invested in the enforcement of anti-marijuana laws or only the jobs that count on marijuana being legal. Nor is it only the pride with which the American government takes in fighting the supposed evils of marijuana. If marijuana were to be legalized then the whole loss of all these factors would be the real heartbreaker. In addition to this, the government, as an investor, is in a rather unique position. They have virtually total control over the decision of legalization.

Would it then be prudent for them to suddenly throw away their money, jobs, and pride without extreme pressure from an outside source? No, it would not; the government would never alienate so many people and so much money, unless they had to politically. It is ironic that the government chose to wage a "war" on drugs, because the current situation with marijuana seems to be strikingly similar to that of the Vietnam War. Because of the government's arrogant stance against communism, Vietnam was prolonged for many more years than it had to be. In explaining the threat of a possible nuclear war, writers George Kahin and John Lewis comment that, "Kennedy appreciated the dangerous potential inherent in any step by step escalation of violence whereby a nation's objectives are gradually broadened as it becomes more committed to a favorable outcome" (Kahin, & Lewis, 1967). The government's new "commitment" for a drug-free America, however, has nothing equivalent to the threat of nuclear war to stop the escalating Drug War.

For Vietnam, it took an almost revolutionary social movement for the government to pull out of their investment. This is also the case with the war on drugs. No matter how badly it is working or how wasteful it is for taxpayers, the government is not one to throw away its investment on its own. There must be strong pressure from the American people for the government to let go of the investment. However, herein lies the problem; for the cause of legalizing marijuana is not perceived as a noble cause, and the vast majority, especially middle and upper class, of Americans would not lift their pinky finger for legalization. They perceive the use of marijuana as a social vice and non-beneficial. The interest group that marijuana has impacted is the age group of 18 -35, majority fall under the lower class of the society. They are majorly impacted due to the amount of idle time they have at their disposal. So until these changes, the government will most likely get to keep the huge investment that they have in fighting marijuana. The president himself is quoted, “Use of Marijuana Is Not 'More Dangerous Than Alcohol” Obama (Peralta, 2014)

The Arizona medical marijuana policy.

This policy was initiated in the year 2010 and approved by the state of Arizona through the November ballot as an initiated state statute. The policy allowed people of Arizona state who had specific medical conditions to be diagnosed with certain quantities of marijuana. This served as the policy’s main purpose. The qualified patients could purchase the drug at specified clinics. Its legality allowed for zero discrimination on hiring as well as no termination of employment contracts of the registered marijuana cardholders.

One of the problems with this policy came in when workers attended their duties while on medicinal marijuana. This might eventually lead to worker impairment hence contradicting the safety pre cautions at a workplace.

There should be measures to maintain safe work places if the use of medical marijuana is allowed. Furthermore, “medical marijuana should be banned in colleges, campuses and other learning institutions.” (Anderson & Hansen, 2013, p.340)

There are several actors who played various roles in the legalization of medical marijuana; Jack Black, comedian and activist sat on the advisory board of the Marijuana Policy Project, aimed at reforming US marijuana laws. Tommy Chong, comedian and activist has pretty much been the poster child for marijuana use since 1978's Up in Smoke, so it's no surprise he wants to legalize the drug. On the website CelebStoner, he wrote, "Hey stoners, don't forget to vote for Prop. 19! Legalize it! Get it Legal! Let's grow up as a country and recognize the plant that can and will save the world!" The Arizona Medical Marijuana policy project, the Arizona Department of Health Services, The Pima County Board of Supervisors, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), state of Arizona voters are all groups that are with legalization of marijuana. The most influential group is the activist, artists, and comedians that mainly support the cause of legalizing marijuana.

The Arizona Department of Health Services released rules on who can grow, distribute and consume the cannabis plant for medical use. This department dealt with the regulation of the sale and use of medical marijuana. The FDA checks on the authenticity of the medical marijuana research analysis for approval. Before the approval the FDA consults with the department of Health and Human services. Several consultations and meetings between the two departments were vital in the formulation of this policy. Comment by RHUMPHRE: You have made revisions to assignment 1 and you have provided a summary but I do not see that you have described the influential actors and made a special analysis of two key actors. This is a requirement of the rubric. Please resubmit with the required elements of Assignment 2.

References Comment by RHUMPHRE: References Guidance for Reference Section: >> Always put references in alphabetical order >> You have used 9 references of which 5 are credible. >> Credible sources come from academic journals. Newspapers, books, and websites can give valuable background but they are not always credible sources. >> Strayer APA Guidelines may be found at https://icampus.strayer.edu/lrc/apa-guidlines

Anderson, D. M., Hansen, B., & Rees, D. I. (2013). Medical marijuana laws, traffic fatalities, and alcohol consumption. Journal of Law and Economics, 56(2), 333-369.

Belenko, S. R. (Ed.). (2000). Drugs and drug policy in America: A documentary history. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Davis, A. K., Osborn, L. A., Leith, J., Rosenberg, H., Ashrafioun, L., Hawley, A., ... & Baik, K. D. (2014). Development and evaluation of the Marijuana Reduction Strategies Self-Efficacy Scale. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 28(2), 575.

Garvey, T. (2012, March). Medical Marijuana: The Supremacy Clause, Federalism, and the Interplay Between State and Federal Laws. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.

Kahin, G. M., & Lewis, J. W. (1967). The United States in Vietnam (Vol. 9243). Dial Press.

MacCoun, R., Pacula, R. L., Chriqui, J., Harris, K., & Reuter, P. (2009). Do citizens know whether their state has decriminalized marijuana? Assessing the perceptual component of deterrence theory. Review of Law & Economics, 5(1), 347-371.

Pacula, R. L., Chriqui, J. F., Reichmann, D. A., & Terry-McElrath, Y. M. (2002). State medical marijuana laws: Understanding the laws and their limitations.Journal of Public Health Policy, 413-439.

Peralta. E. (2014, January 19) Obama says marijuana 'no more dangerous than alcohol'

The New Yorker. Retrieved from www.newyorker.com/

The White House, United States Government. (2012).The Public Health Consequences of Marijuana Legalization. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/