Thomas Summers Dr.

Easson English 112 19 April 2013 Decriminalization: A Proposition on Marijuana Law Reform in America At 5:14 a.m. on March 30, 1983, an airplane approached Newark International Airport in in Newark, New Jersey. Despite instructions not to descend yet, the pilots directed the plane towards the runway. Exceeding appropriate flight speeds for descending and landing, the aircraft struck the ground and was destroyed, killing both of the pilots. No mechanical failures of the plane were identified. However, toxicological tests revealed that both pilots had used marijuana less than twenty-four hours before flying the aircraft. Impairment of the flightcrew's judgment, decision making, and flying abilities was listed as a cause of the accident (National Transportation). In 2012, scientists at the University of California's Epilepsy Center conducted an experiment with a forty-three-year old patient who suffered from severe epileptic seizures. The case study examined whether inhaled marijuana would affect the subject's night-time seizures. Initially, the patient experienced an average of five-to-six seizures per evening. However, oral doses of marijuana reduced the frequency of the seizures to only one or two per evening. The scientists concluded that for at least a subset of patients with focal epilepsy, marijuana use may provide an anticonvulsant effect (Garcia et al. 565-66). Both the story of the pilots and the story of the epileptic patient reflect how marijuana is a double-edged sword: the drug has great potential for harm and great potential for beneficial use. Because of the drug's dual nature, marijuana remains a controversial substance. Debate

continues over its illegal status and whether it should be legalized. In today's society, the controversy surrounding cannabis centers on four main issues. First, statistics are showing that despite its prohibition, marijuana use has grown among all age groups since the 1990s. Second, more people are rejecting marijuana prohibition based on the financial costs of enforcing such drug laws. Third, efforts to legalize medical marijuana are gaining national support, and several states have passed legislature permitting medical use of cannabis. Lastly, marijuana's illegality has resulted in a multibillion-dollar black market industry in the United Statesthe profits of which flow to criminal enterprises (Goodwin 9-10). Unfortunately, solutions to these issues are often generalized into a false dichotomy of either legalizing or criminalizing marijuana. As a result of this either-or perspective, people often jump to the conclusion that since criminalization policies are failing, legalization is the better (and only) solution. However, marijuana regulation is not a black-and-white scenario; rather, it is a spectrum of different combinations between prohibiting and allowing certain drug usage. New governmental policies need to be constructed within this spectrum and founded on the results of scientific research. Instead of leaning towards legalization, research studies indicate a decriminalization stance should be used. Under such policies, punishments for breaking marijuana laws would be tailored to fit the severity of the crime. For example, possession of small amounts of the drug would be a civil offense, while production or distribution of marijuana would be a misdemeanor or felony depending on amounts possessed. Additional benefits would come from rescheduling marijuana from the most restrictive Type I label to a less restrictive Type II label. This relabeling would allow researchers and pharmaceutical companies easier access to the drug, increasing the amount of research

performed on marijuana and accelerating the development of cannabis-based medicines. Before examining the arguments and data in favor of decriminalization, however, it is important to analyze the various arguments made for the more popular legalization stance. Proponents for marijuana legalization often address five main topics: tax revenue, the criminal justice system, the hemp industry, the black market, and the Netherlands' marijuana legalization. On the topic of tax revenue, supporters of legalization argue that the taxation of cannabis could generate billions of dollars in revenue for the government. It is estimated that manufacturing taxes, licenses, and fees could yield around seven billion dollars per year if marijuana was legalized, not including the money generated on sales tax from new cannabisbased industries (Kubby 26). This revenue would be compounded with the money saved in the criminal justice system. The cost of enforcing marijuana laws is estimated to be between eight billion and thirteen billion dollars each yearexpenses which could turn into savings with legalization of the drug. State payments to private prisons would also decrease as marijuana law violators will be released (Goodwin 63). Additional benefits would result when the hemp industry integrates into America's economy. With an American-based hemp company, the millions of dollars spent in importing raw hemp materials would be diverted into America's own economic system (Kubby 46). From a more moral perspective, marijuana legalization is predicted to strike a blow financially to the black market and drug cartels. The increased availability of marijuana would eliminate the need for obtaining the drug illegally, thereby cutting revenue circulating in criminal systems. As a final point in their argument, legalization proponents often refer to the current status of the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, marijuana is able to be openly sold in coffee shops. Yet, despite the openness and easy access to cannabis, marijuana use rates in the

Netherlands are similar to those in the United States, indicating that legalization might not increase marijuana consumption (Fromberg 118). While the arguments for marijuana legalization appear logical and conclusive, further examination of the evidence reveals numerous unaddressed problems. For instance, the projected seven billion dollar tax revenue does not reflect the net financial outcome of legalizing cannabis. The tax revenue gained from legal marijuana would easily be offset by its social costs in areas such as health care, criminal justice, and lost productivity in the workplace. An example of this principle is seen in the current impact of alcohol. While state and federal governments have collectively received around fifteen billion dollars in alcohol taxes, more than one-hundred eighty billion dollars is estimated to have been lost to alcohol-expenses (The Economic Costs 369). The savings of the criminal justice system is also an illusion. Though it may be true that more than sixty thousand people are in jail for marijuana-based crimes, the number of people in jail only for marijuana possession is exponentially smaller. A study by Caulkins estimates that only 0.1 % 0.2 % of all prison inmates are in prison only due to marijuana usethe other thousands are convicted with additional crimes such as distributing other drugs or drug-related violence (424-425). If the results of the investigation are true, then the act of legalizing marijuana would only release a very small percentage of people, and only a minute amount of the billions of dollars claimed to be spent on marijuana regulation alone would be saved. The impact legalization would have on the Mexican drug cartels and is another exaggerated argument. A 2010 RAND report revealed that the drug cartels only receive a minor portion of their income from marijuana distribution. For these cartels, the greatest income comes from other illegal activities such as human trafficking, kidnapping, prostitute trade, and the

distribution of other illicit drugs (Kilmer 35-38). Thus, marijuana legalization will have only a minor effect on the Mexican cartels. Despite the faults within the argument for marijuana legalization, many of its benefits can be combined with the benefits of the prohibition movement to yield an improved strategy for marijuana regulation, a strategy called decriminalization. Decriminalization has two main goals: to minimize the health and safety hazards of marijuana consumption, and to minimize the social costs resulting from attempts to control its use. In comparing the two goals marijuana policy strives to achieve, Eric Single notes the following: The attainment of these two goals can be, to a certain extent, contradictory. Vigorous enforcement of criminal sanctions against possession may reduce levels of use but it also escalates the social costs and adverse individual consequences. Conversely, a reduction in enforcement may reduce costs but contribute to an increase in consumption, and thus increase health and safety risks. Thus, the policy considerations center upon balancing social costs against the deterrent impact of the law. (457) In several ways, the decriminalization strategy provides a suitable balance between social costs and public safety. This balance is most clearly seen in how decriminalization would reform current marijuana legislature. Under today's current prohibitive laws, management of marijuana criminals relies solely on the criminal justice system. Under decriminalized laws, however, the management of criminals is shared between both the criminal justice system and the public health system. This sharing of duties is caused by an alteration in how law violators are treated. Decriminalization views violations of the law on a scale ranging from civil offenses to criminal felonies, dependent

on factors such as the intentions of the crime and the amount of marijuana involved. The punishments of such crimes are accordingly scaled, ranging from attendance to a marijuanaeducation program, to mandatory health screenings, to several months in a probation program, to incarceration. This management allows minor violators to be directed towards appropriate health treatment without exhausting the criminal justice system's resources and without damaging the offenders personal records (Stroup 60-62). Additional alterations on the criminal justice system include two main improvements. First, law enforcement will be directed towards eliminating the source of marijuana access (e.g. production/distribution centers, black market workers) rather than the consumers. Second, the courts may generate a positive net income due to an increase in revenue from fines and a decrease in criminal court costs. Both benefits have been notably documented in two places: California, where the cost of marijuana law enforcement dropped from seventeen million dollars to under four-and-a-half million dollars within the first year of decriminalization; and Australia, where court costs have been around one million dollars but court revenue from fines generates nearly two million dollars per year (Ali 173-74). Several beneficial qualities of marijuana legalization are also features of the decriminalization movement. For example, the integration of the hemp industry into the American economy is a characteristic of both campaigns. More importantly, though, is decriminalization's incorporation of the increased youth education and prevention programs. It is well established that perceived risk and drug use are strongly correlated (Bachman, Johnston, and O'Malley 890); it is also well established that marijuana is often the first illegal drug young children use (Johnston 349). As such, the utilization of marijuana-prevention programs in schools and within communities strikes at the heart of the problem by eliminating

environments where youth are prompted to try drugs (Faggiano). One of the more debatable aspects of marijuana decriminalization concerns whether medical marijuana should be permitted. For three main reasons, it is better for society to not legalize medical cannabis. The first reason is the shortage of research regarding marijuana's medicinal benefits. While much research has been conducted on the benefits, side effects, and medicinal uses for cannabis' chemical components (e.g. delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, dimethylheptylpyran, cannabidiol), few studies have been made on the medicinal benefits from consuming marijuana as-a-whole. Also, medical practitioners generally discourage use of medical marijuana as its most effective method of delivery is smoking, an obvious health hazard (Schuckit 54-58). A second reason medical marijuana should not be legalized is the absence of support from most medical communities. The movement for medicinal cannabis remains a heavily citizen and politician supported campaign. In contrast, most health-based organizations remain skeptical and do not advocate its legalization. Some of the organizations include the American Cancer Society, the American Glaucoma Foundation, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, the American Medical Association, the Institute of Medicine, the World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Society of Addiction Medicine. While these associations are highly skeptical of medical marijuana, it is important to note that they all support the use and development of cannabis-based pharmaceuticals (Joy an Mack 178). The third reason against medical use of marijuana is the impracticality of its future use. With the decriminalization of marijuana, the drug would be rescheduled under the Controlled Substances Act to a Type II drug. This change would enable scientists and pharmaceutical

companies easier access to cannabis, catalyzing the development of safer and more effective cannabis-based medicines. These medications would eliminate the need for marijuana as a treatment. Granted, until such pharmaceuticals are developed, a heavily-regulated emergency program allowing seriously ill patients to obtain marijuana should be established. However, the use of marijuana as a medicine within the general population should not be permitted (Joy and Mack 139-42). Change is coming to America. The rising awareness of current marijuana issues is leading to a much-needed change of law. However, the popular dichotomous argument of legalization vs criminalization is resulting in an ignorance that a better solution exists. Though both criminalization and legalization have their strengths and weaknesses, the position of decriminalization utilizes the best features of both policies. The scale-based punishment system, the health-oriented treatments, the financial savings from cost-reduction of the court systems, the introduction of the hemp industry, the prevention-based community programs, and the accelerated development of cannabis-based drugs are all results of a decriminalized marijuana system. Continuing to research marijuana's sociological, financial, and medicinal impacts is critical if future reform is to adequately fit to America's intricate society.

Works Cited Ali, Robert and Paul Christie and Eric Single. The Impact of Cannabis Decriminalisation in Australia and the United States. Journal of Public Health Policy 21.2 (2000): 173-174. JSTOR. Web. 18 Apr. 2013.

Bachman, J.G., L.D. Johnston, and P.M. O'Malley. Explaining the recent increases in students marijuana use: The impacts of perceived risks and disapproval from 1976 through 1996. American Journal of Public Health, 88.6 (1998): 890. Academic Search Premier. Web. 18 Apr. 2013.

Caulkins, Jonathan P., and Eric L. Sevigny. How Many People Does The U.S. Imprison For Drug Use, And Who Are They? Contemporary Drug Problems 32.3 (2005): 424-425. Academic Search Premier. Web. 18 Apr. 2013.

Faggiano, Fabrizio. School-based prevention for illicit drugs use. Avogadro University Department of Medical Sciences. Nordic Campbell Center, Copenhagen. 10 Nov. 2005. Lecture.

Fromberg, E. The Case of the Netherlands: Contradictions and Values in Questioning Prohibition. 1994 International Report on Drugs. Brussels: International Antiprohibitionist League, 1994. Print.

Garcia et al. Seizure exacerbation in two patients with focal epilepsy following marijuana

cessation. Epilepsy & Behavior. 25.4 (2012): 565-566. Web. 18 Apr. 2013.

Goodwin, William. Marijuana. San Diego: Lucent Books, 2002. Print.

Johnston, Lloyd. Toward a theory of drug epidemics. Persuasive Communication and Drug Abuse Prevention. (1991): 349. Web. 18 April 2013.

Joy, Janet, and Alison Mack. Marijuana As Medicine? The Science Beyond the Controversy. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2001. Print.

Kilmer et al. Reducing Drug Trafficking Revenues and Violence in Mexico. Would Legalizing Marijuana in California Help? States News Service. 11 Oct. 2010. Academic OneFile. Web. 18 Apr. 2013.

Kubby, Steve and Ed Rosenthal. Why Marijuana Should Be Legal. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 2003. Print.

Schuckit, Marc. Additional Research on Medical Marijuana is Warranted. Marijuana (1999): 54-58. Print.

Single, Eric. The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization: An Update. Journal of Public Health Policy. 10.4 (1989): 457. Web. 18 Apr. 2013.

Stroup, R. Marijuana Use Should Be Decriminalized. Marijuana (2003): 60-62. Print.

United States. National Institutes of Health. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The Economic Costs of Alcohol Abuse. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. National Institutes of Health, n.d. Web. 18 April 2013.

United States. NTSB Office of Public Affairs. National Transportation Safety Board. National Transportation Safety Board Recommendation(s). National Transportation Safety Board. NTSB Office of Public Affairs, Aug. 1984. Web. 18 Apr. 2013.