The Marijuana Policy in California - Essay Example

The Marijuana Policy in California Marijuana is the United s’ most widely abused illegal drug. In 2009, that National Survey on Drug use and Health carried out a survey that about 16. 7 million American citizens aged 12 years and above abused the drug more that once per month before they were surveyed, which shows an increase in its use as compared to all the years between 2002 and 2008 (Shovov, 83). This issue of marijuana abuse has raised a lot of attention and concern in several states in America, particularly California where it has been subject to a lot of discussions in the legislature and the media as well. This essay will provide both a descriptive and analytical examination of the marijuana policy in California. Some of the laws governing the use of the drug will be examined, including its medical use, together with how the laws are enforced, and some of the bills that subject to discussion in the legislature and their likely outcomes. According to the California Health & Safety Code 11018, the definition of marijuana is all the parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether it is grown or not; its seeds, the resin gotten from the plant, and any compound derived or manufactured from the plant. However, it does not include the plant’s mature stalks or any substance manufactured or derived from the stalk. Concentrated cannabis is used to mean the separated resin extracted from marijuana, irrespective of whether it is in purified or crude form. In spite of the fact that the laws for simple possession and the medical marijuana laws in California are among the country’s most progressive, adults who are seemingly responsible are still being arrested or harassed for its possession at an alarming rate. This is for a drug that has been scientifically proved to be safer than both tobacco and alcohol. According to Weintraub & Wood (44), the arrest rates in California for crimes related to marijuana in 2003 stood at 173 for every 100,000 people, and by 2007, the rate had risen to 203 per 100,000. In 2010, preposition 19 received a narrow defeat of 16% to 54%. It was a vote whose aim was to bring to an end the draconian policy of the arrest and prosecution of adults who were caught using marijuana, a substance proven to have less unpleasant effects than alcohol and cigarettes. This was to be achieved through the removal of criminal penalties for offenses related to marijuana as well as allowing local authorities to tax and regulate its growth and distribution. Despite its loss, it had the highest percentage of any marijuana legalization initiative that has ever been voted for (Weintraub & Wood 44). California State is ranked number 46 in the country in terms of the total severity of the maximum jail sentences that its residents receive for being in possession of marijuana, this being on a basis of penalties issued for first offenders. When looking at the penalties issued for just less than 1 once of the drug, the state is ranked number 12 together with 10 other states, since due to similarities in the states there are only 12 rankings within this category (McCollum 37).In 2007, arrested related to the possession of marijuana accounted for about 80% of all arrests related to the drug in California. Additionally, arrests related to the drug also accounted for 25% of all arrests related to drugs in the same year (McCollum 37). In recent years, the cultivation of marijuana has been on the increase dramatically. DCESP (Domestic Cannabis Eradication suppression Program), a program sponsored by the Drug Enforcement Administration, collects data that does not include all the marijuana plants seized within the state; but these data give an accurate indication of the actual cultivation rates of the drug. As much as getting estimates of how much from the total amounts of the drug cultivated is seized by the authorities, such as the local, state and federal ones is difficult, the overall trend is clear. The total seizures of the pant in California have increased for a period of four years between 2004 and 2008 by a staggering 338%, with indoor seizures of the plant increasing by about 20% within a similar period (Oliver, Hill & Nancy 458). Apparently, marijuana related arrests divert the criminal justice system and law enforcement resources from sale and possession offenses involving other illegal drugs. Marijuana related arrests in 2007 accounted for 25% of all drug relate arrests in the state (Nielsen 464).Other illegal drugs the likes of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, as well as synthetic narcotics the likes of oxcontin are a far more serious threat to the health of both the public and the individuals. Additionally, these other illegal drugs have a far more liabilities in terms of dependence than in the case of marijuana. The need for improvement of the clearance rates for more serious crimes, allocation of more resources to fighting white-collar crimes, as well as addressing the problems presented by more dangerous drugs are enough reasons to compel the California state to change its marijuana policy (Nielsen 466). When considering the social costs, arrests elated to marijuana have an impact that is not proportionate to two major demographic groups, minorities and the youth. In a majority of cases, an arrest involving the possession of marijuana makes an otherwise law-abiding citizen to look like a criminal. It comes as no surprise that most of the marijuana possession arrests involve either teenagers or young adults, given the popularity of the use of the drug with these age groups. Nonetheless, the differences in the arrest rates between black people and white people cannot be clarified by the differences in the drugn use. For example, about 10.5 % of whites used the drug in 2007 as compared to 12.2% of blacks who used it. This shows that the use of the drug among the blacks is about 20% more prevalent than in the case of whites (Joffe & Yancy e635). Despite this being a statistically significant difference, it fails explain why the arrest rates involving the possession of the drug for blacks are three times as high as that in the case of whites in terms of national figures. For, example, in 2007, the arrest rate for blacks was 598 for every 100, 000, while that of whites was just 195 (Joffe & Yancy e635). In order to understand the California marijuana policy, it is worthy looking at its use within the state. There exists a general consensus that under ages should not use either alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana. Examining the most recent data, which is that of 2007, about 13% of California youths aged between 12 and 17 years use the drug in that year (Joffe & Yancy e635).The illegal status of the drug did not in any way prevent these youths from accessing the drug, let alone using it. As a matter of fact, most teenagers report that it is fairly easy to obtain the drug, with one of the reasons for its easy accessibility being the profit incentive that the illegal market creates. To put it simply, the youth make money by selling the drug to their fellow youth, thus increasing the accessibility of marijuana among the youth. In this way, the illegality of the drug makes it more easily and widely available to the youth (Joffe & Yancy e635). In California, most arrests related to marijuana are usually made by local police agencies. Individual officers and agencies exercise considerable discretion in regards to law enforcement, not only to offenses related to marijuana, but to other offenses as well. The number of arrests involving marijuana also varies due to differences in the local prevalence of the use of the drug and the differences in local populations. Additionally, due to some areas attracting large visitor populations, these areas may have high rates of marijuana arrests. Since the calculation of the arrest rates is one by dividing the total number of arrests made by the population of the local residents, the arrest of visitors within a certain area artificially inflates the local arrest rates, thus providing a false figure of the true arrest rate. Therefore, in case of a town with a relatively small population, the arrest of several visitors driving through the town or within a nearby road may produce a somewhat higher arrest rate for possession of marijuana (Khatapoush & Hallfors 761). Towns that have colleges or universities within their boundaries may report large arrests rates for offenses related to marijuana since they have a larger resident population of the youth, who use the drug more prevalently than older populations. Nonetheless, these college towns may also have lower arrest rates for the possession of marijuana, for instance due to the local police agencies’ discretionally policies. Similarly, areas with large populations of black people may have higher arrest rates for possession of the drug than other areas with predominantly white people. This is because law enforcement organizations and the police in general consistently arrest more blacks than whites for possession of the drug (Kilmer, Caulkins & Pacula 134). Areas such as Ski resorts, beach towns, and natural resource areas may also have high arrests rates for the possession of marijuana since the attract many visitors, including large numbers of the youth who frequently use the drug. Other areas may have high arrest areas simply because the residents of that area end to use the drug more, or because the police are aggressive at arresting the user, or both (Kilmer, Caulkins & Pacula 137). In California, the data on marijuana treatment admissions is in most cases used to justify the devotion of resources of law enforcement to making marijuana arrests. This argument is two-fold; first, the number of admissions related to marijuana use in drug rehabs is presented as evidence of the dangers of sing marijuana. Secondly, it justifies marijuana arrests since they force people to seek treatment. However, this argument contains several flaws. For instance, alcohol is responsible for a large number of drug rehabs, but regulation is considered the most effective policy for its restriction and reduction. Furthermore, drug abuse is not technically a crime, despite concerns about it and efforts made to reduce it. In the case of drug laws, the legal basis is that it is the manufacture, sale, distribution, and possession that are illegal. It is against the constitution to criminalize mental health problems, illnesses, or dependence on drugs in California and the U.S. at large. For instance, being an alcoholic is not a crime, but instead alcoholics are held legally responsible for their behaviors and conduct, like being drunk and disorderly in public or driving while under the influence of alcohol. Coercing drug addicts into joining rehabilitation programs is just a dubious way of justifying the arrests of individuals for being in possession of marijuana. Law enforcement officers such as the police, prosecutors, as well as other professionals in the criminal justice system are neither medically trained nor qualified to diagnose dependence on drugs, or come up with discretionary decisions about the treatment requirements of drug addicts (Shovov, 189). In California, the most visible characteristic of treatment admissions related to marijuana addiction is that most of them result from the criminal justice system referrals. Often, these referrals are an alternative to jail time for the offenses of being n possession or sale of marijuana. In October 2011, four United States attorneys, representing the state of California, announced a new aggressive plan that targeted providers of medal marijuana, in a press conference. The attorneys outlined an approach that aimed to target providers as well as landlords based on which parts of the state they operated in (Farrel & Ritson 369). Since the announcement was made, several providers of medical marijuana together with the landlords of their operating bases have received threats of criminal prosecution and seizure of properties by agents from the department of justice. The threats were followed by raids across the state, with the most high-profile ones being the raid on Oaksterdam University by the IRS and DEA, and the one on some properties belonging to Richard Lee, a long-time activist of the legalization of marijuana. This continued targeting of the providers of medical marijuana is quite disturbing, considering the previous position held by president Barrack Obama on the issue. In 2009, his department of justice issued a memo, based on a ledge made during the 2008 presidential campaign, that stated medical marijuana providers who acted in clear compliance with the states medical marijuana laws, should not be targets of such raids or assaults (McQueen, 270). In conclusion, it can be seen that the marijuana policy in the state of California is restrictive and discriminative, considering that the drug is not as harmful and dangerous at people think, and has been scientifically proven so. The effects of the drug are less destructive when compared to those of alcohol and tobacco, yet the policy against these two is not as harsh as that of marijuana. Desire several extensive campaigns and activism to legalize the drug, both in the state and in the country as well, its sale and possession still courts arrests and jail times. It is about time California changed its policy on marijuana, or at least review it in a way that makes it tolerable to the public for such a popular recreational drug that is used by many individuals. References Farrell, Michael & Ritson, Bruce. Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth The British Journal of Psychiatry. 179.4 (2001):369-370. Joffe, Alain & Yancy, Samuel. Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth Pediatrics 113.6 (2004): e632-e638 Khatapoush, shereen & Hallfors, Denise. Sending the Wrong Message”: Did Medical Marijuana Legalization in California Change Attitudes about and use of Marijuana? Journal of Drug Issues 34.4 (2004): 751-770 Kilmer, Beau., Caulkins, Jonathan & Pacula, Rosalie. Altered State?:Assessing How Marijuana Legalization in California Could Influence Marijuana Consumption and Public Budgets. New York: RAND. 2010. Print MacCoun, Robert & Reuter, Peter. Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes. The British Journal of Psychiatry 178.98 (2001): 123-128 McCollum, Bill. Medical Marijuana Referenda Movement in America: Congressional Hearing. New York: DIANE Publishing. 2001. Print McQueen, Alan. Pragmatic approach to the dangers of cannabis use The British Journal of Psychiatry 179.3 (2001). 270-271 Nielsen, Amie L. Americans' Attitudes toward Drug-Related Issues from 1975–2006: The Roles of Period and Cohort Effects Journal of Drug Issues 40.2 (2010): 461-493 Oliver, Willard M., Hill, Joshua & Marion, Nancy E. When the President Speaks…An Analysis of Presidential Influence Over Public Opinion Concerning the War on Drugs Criminal Justice Review 36.4 (2011): 456-469 Regan, Trish. Joint Ventures: Inside America's Almost Legal Marijuana Industry. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. 2011. Print Shohov, Tatiana. Medical Use of Marijuana: Policy, Regulatory, and Legal Issues. Los Angeles: Nova Publishers. 2009. Print Weintraub, Sidney & Wood, Duncan. Cooperative Mexican-U.S. Antinarcotics Efforts. New York: CSIS. 2010. Print   Read More