Decriminalization of Marijuana and Its Positive and Negative Impacts - Admission/Application Essay Example

Decriminalization of Marijuana and its Positive and Negative Impacts: Introduction For the past two decade, there have been hot debates on what might happen to most societies in United States if marijuana is decriminalized. Massachusetts among other united states has gone ahead and changed some of its existing laws to reduce the marijuana possess penalties. In 2008, voters in Massachusetts states voted yes on the bill “Massachusetts sensible marijuana policy initiative”, which became law early 2009 (Earleywine, 2002, 74). The aim of this law was to reduce the penalties on marijuana possession. Although the substance has been decriminalized, some Massachusetts residents do not understand the enforcement of the law and their rights. This has made the citizens to be unaware of what to do when caught smoking the drug in public. The fact that the marijuana has been decriminalized, the substance remains to be illegal (Earleywine, 2002, 74). Marijuana decriminalization simply means that the possession of the drug is not a criminal act, but an individual possessing it is subject to civil fines. For this matter, marijuana distribution, selling, and selling still remain subject to criminal penalties (Earleywine, 2002, 74). This law is not applicable to marijuana only but also other substances which have active ingredient especially the Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The prohibition of substances containing THC is because; they give psychoactive properties to marijuana. Substance such as hash oil and hashish are prohibited as they contain THC. Communities in Massachusetts have been permitted by the law to come up with their own ordinances regarding public consumption of cannabis (Earleywine, 2002, 75). However, this state does not permit arresting of citizens to be part of the ordinances. The state has also set a fine of $300 to be the maximum fine that can be charged on people possessing marijuana. Several communities in Massachusetts have withdrawn from this process of creating ordinances as they find it hard to come up with ordinances that would allow arresting of individuals possessing the drug (Earleywine, 2002, 78). Due to the impact of marijuana decriminalization on communities in Massachusetts, a lot of attention has been given to the act. Those who have supported marijuana decriminalization have argued that the act is of benefit to the state in several areas. Such areas include: improvement of the welfare of the users of marijuana, increased savings on the local and state government budget, and improvement on criminal justice resource distribution and allocation. On the other hand, the opponents to the bill of decriminalizing marijuana have argued that the act will result to an increased use of the substance accompanied with other negative effects (Jenkins, 2006). Prior to the decriminalization of marijuana in Massachusetts and other United States led to a hot debate among the policy makers whether the act would increase the rate of marijuana use. However, those advocated for decriminalization of marijuana argued that allowing responsible consumption of marijuana by adult would be of more benefits than it would cost the government. From the states that have already decriminalized marijuana, there is no evidence showing that increase in marijuana consumption has resulted because of decriminalizing the substance. On the other side, the opponents have argued out that decriminalizing marijuana would lead to an increased consumption of the substance (Jenkins, 2006). The most important thing in this case is to determine whether the change resulting from decriminalizing marijuana is small or large (Jenkins, 2006). If the impact is not severe, determine whether it is a benefit or cost. Indication from the countries that have already decriminalized marijuana show that increased use of marijuana has no relation with decriminalization. Study carried out by Loo in 2003 which monitored high school seniors in United States where some states had decriminalized marijuana and others did not, showed little evidence to whether marijuana use increase because of decriminalization. Benefits of Marijuana Decriminalization The decriminalization of marijuana has positive impact on both local and the government budget. The implications of marijuana decriminalization in Massachusetts will be felt in two areas. One, the policy will lead to saving of resources used to ensure criminal justice. Under the new policy, resource that are channeled to the police, state forensic laboratories, prosecutors, court clerks, prisons, and judges in the process of maintaining criminal justice will be minimal (Loo, 2003, 101). Two, there will be increase in government revenue as the criminal fines levied on marijuana have been substituted with civil fines. Such fines are vital to the communities for the improvement of social welfares facilities. However, the two categories of savings are significant to the Massachusetts state as the saved money can be used for law enforcement on other serious crimes (Loo, 2003, 101). People arrested because of marijuana possession in Massachusetts states, are not subjected to trials or taken to prison under the new policy. Instead, the arrests are plea-bargained, taken for treatment, or handled in a manner that does not subject them to serious criminal justice investigation like other criminal offense arrests (Loo, 2003, 104). This approach in Massachusetts has helped in saving resources used on judicial activities, police, prosecution, and on correction matters. Since the police in Massachusetts do not engage in activities such as arresting criminals possessing marijuana, their roles have been diverted to other activities such as traffic control and providing security. Such related activities carried out by the police do not involve a lot of work as there is less arresting of offenders (Lynch, 2000). Under the marijuana decriminalization policy, Massachusetts will save resources as it has avoided expensive approaches used for arresting people possessing marijuana. The marijuana possession arrests take place under three possibilities. One is here labeled stand-alone. These are arrests which occur as result of marijuana criminalization. The police in this case arrest an individual they have observed smoking, or suspected of taking marijuana out of his or her characteristics such as odor. Two is here labeled civil incidental. The arrests in this case occur due to other non-criminal offenses, such as violation of traffic rules in which the police may smell marijuana from the offenders. Three is here labeled criminal-incidental. These are arrests which take place when a police detains an offender but later realizes that he or she possessed marijuana. All the above approaches have been observed to be very expensive when it comes to prohibition of marijuana (Maccoun, 2001). As a result of marijuana decriminalization, Massachusetts has stopped all of the above categories of arrests, but police charge the offenders for only possessing marijuana, which has helped the state to save a lot of resources used in maintaining criminal justice. As observed from above, savings of resources in criminal justice system result out of three components. These include: reduction of resources used on police due to low rates of arrests; reduction of resources used on judicial activities and prosecution because of few cases on pre-trial hearings, trials, and criminal applications; and reduction of resources in correcting offenders because of the few prisoners held. Marijuana decriminalization in Massachusetts will positively impact the above three components hence lead to a massive saving by the government. Although there is no readily available information on disposition of arrests on marijuana possession, the serving prisoners suggest that fewer resources are spend on possession trials (Lynch, 2000). However, the savings realized from the implementation of the new marijuana policy may be affected by other marijuana associated crimes. Although under this new policy marijuana possessors may be arrested, this happens when the arrestee is suspected of committing other criminal offenses. Under such circumstance, as the other arrest is recorded, the marijuana possession should also be recorded. This may render it difficult to increase saving under the new law since the whole process of trail and prosecution will be carried out. The fact that most arrests for marijuana possession may occur together with other offenses, implies that less resources would be saved with the new policy (Maccoun, 2001). Another impact of decriminalization of marijuana in Massachusetts State is change in revenue collected from fines. The previously offenders in Massachusetts were fined up to 500 dollars for marijuana possession. Currently, under the decriminalization of marijuana the offenders are subject to a fine of 100 dollars (Maccoun, 2001). The fact that any criminal offender under the old law on marijuana possession evaded the payment of penalties, the current policy may be effective in collection of fines. This would in turn result to an increase in revenue collected by the government and the ordained community members (Maccoun, 2001). Spending a lot of resources to criminalize marijuana on the bases that marijuana has health effects would cost the state more than what it would be mitigating. There is no enough evidence to support the idea that marijuana has health effects. So far the effects associated with the use of marijuana are uncertain, and if felt it is after a long period of time. The effects that may be associated with marijuana are equivalent or less than the long-term effects associated with the use of other drugs such as alcohol and tobacco (Kay, 2002). Those states that have decriminalized and authorized consumption of alcohol and tobacco incur less cost to regulate the use of such drugs. The same case would be true from the decriminalized marijuana in Massachusetts as it would spend less money to fund the institution for regulating use of marijuana (Kay, 2002). Decriminalizing of marijuana would also cut down the income got by organized crime in Massachusetts. Studies have found that trafficking and sale of marijuana in many states support criminals such as motorcycle and violent street gangs (Kay, 2002). The advocates who support marijuana decriminalization are even requesting for formulation of a policy that allows cannabis to be grown and sold under regulation. They have also proposed that sale and cultivation of cannabis be prohibited for non-legalized groups (Kay, 2002). The proponents have argued so because this would reduce the financial gains by the criminals who traffic and sale marijuana. This would be of great benefit to the Massachusetts State as the cost incurred in controlling marijuana associated crimes would also go down (Kay, 2002). Not only will decriminalization of marijuana reduce gains by organized crime, but also reduce the possibility of individuals falling victim of other illicit and harmful drugs such as heroine and cocaine. A study by national institute on drug abuse found out that those teens and children involved in using marijuana had an opportunity to interact with sellers of other drugs. In this case, the teens and children are at greater risks of beginning to use other drugs together with marijuana. Although there is no adequate evidence on whether use of marijuana lead to use of other illicit drugs, research carried out by the World Health Organization found out that, use of other drugs result from illegal market of drugs (Baker, 2008). Prohibition of marijuana creates black-market which in turn exposes marijuana users to other illicit drugs. A study to compare the effect of regulating sale of marijuana in Amsterdam, where the marijuana users purchased small quantities of the drug, and in San Francisco, where marijuana users where prohibited from buying the drug, supported the above research by WHO. The study showed that marijuana users in San Francisco were more prone to use of illicit drugs than their counterparts from Amsterdam. If this is the case, decriminalizing marijuana in Massachusetts would be of great benefits as there will be limited opportunity for marijuana users to use other harmful drugs (Baker, 2008). There is indirect impact of marijuana criminalization on users because of punishment they are subjected to by the criminal justice system. The impact could be indented by the policy makers or not. The conviction for the possession of marijuana has had negative impact on job seekers from employers seeking employees who have never been convicted of any criminal offense (Lynch, 2000, 82). People convicted of marijuana possession normally hide the matter from their employers and family members in states where marijuana is criminalized. There are social and economic consequences that these criminals suffer as a result of hiding the information. A study done by Tedeschi in 2007 showed that 5 percent of employees who attended court proceedings lost their jobs, and incurred more than 70 dollars. The criminalization of marijuana possession in this case results to discrimination and stigmatization of to the offenders. This has a negative impact on individual for long period of time even after the conviction date even if the criminal has never been imprisoned. The decriminalization of marijuana in Massachusetts gives the offender the freedom of not being arrested and tried in court (Tedeschi, 2007). The decriminalization makes the offenders to handle the marijuana possession case as a relatively serious case, in which they feel free to share with there employers. In Massachusetts where marijuana possession is decriminalized, the offense in a jurisdiction is handled like speeding ticket. The offenders where the marijuana is decriminalized conceal the offense to the family members and employer easily, thus resulting to less stigmatization, or positively impacting the offender (Tedeschi, 2007). As the marijuana possession stigma remains to be a major issue of concern in many states in United States irrespective of punishment, the offenders may fail to be employed. Also, the family members may respond negatively to the idea of the offense. Though the impact of marijuana possession may be reduced by decriminalization, social control at community levels may also lessen the impact. The informal social control may work more successfully than the formal control measure to regulate marijuana use (Baker, 2008). Costs of Marijuana Decriminalization Though theoretically it may be argued that decriminalizing marijuana would benefit Massachusetts, there are costs that would follow. Since decriminalizing the drug does not lower its rate of use, it implies that its use, distribution, and selling would continue in Massachusetts (Baker, 2008). Although it has been argued that decriminalization of marijuana does not increase its consumption, frequent use of marijuana has been found to stimulate the brain to drug-taking behavior. This makes the user to try other drug substances which may result to taking of harmful drugs such as heroin and cocaine. Prohibiting use of marijuana in Massachusetts would reduce the risk of its citizens engaging in use of these other drug substances which are harmful to health and the society as a whole. The report published by Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse indicates that those people using more popular drugs began by using less popular drugs (Baker, 2008). In this case, users of cocaine begin by using marijuana as it is the cheapest of the other illicit drugs. Therefore, it would be more harmful for Massachusetts government to decriminalize marijuana, as this would expose the citizens to other harder illicit drugs (Baker, 2008). Decriminalization of marijuana in Massachusetts would results into increased crime. Though there is no enough evidence on whether use of marijuana may lead to increased crimes, it has been found out that, less use of marijuana reduces other criminal behaviors. Marijuana inhibits impulses of aggressive expression on the user. It interferes with the coordination of muscles, reduces the activities of psychomotor, leads to drowsiness passivity, lethargy, and timidity (Williams, & Cameron, 2001). Such characters are associated with unwanted behaviors in most societies. The use of marijuana has been found to interfere with health of people, hence interfering with social and economic welfare of the society. Pot smokers are said to have higher chances of involving in accidents. This implies that, more resources would be used on medical, traffic and accident costs (Williams, & Cameron, 2001). In this case, Massachusetts would be incurring more cost than it would be saving out of reduced resources used in arresting individuals possessing the marijuana. The Massachusetts would also suffer from low worker productivity. It has bee argued that marijuana users are reluctant to go for work. This would affect negatively the economy of this state as the gross domestic product would be very low (Williams, & Cameron, 2001). Decriminalization of marijuana in Massachusetts offers an opportunity to analyze the costs and benefits of the act even to other states. The costs and benefits of marijuana decriminalization can be observed at individual level, the criminal justice system or the government, and health systems. The impact of marijuana decriminalization in Massachusetts has been due to the law influence (Williams, & Cameron, 2001). Conclusion Though Massachusetts State has applied the policy to decriminalize marijuana, it would be hard for the states to determine the future costs and benefits of the policy if it does not collect enough data. Massachusetts used the approach of ballot voting to pass the policy which implies that the costs and benefits of decriminalize marijuana are not certain. Also, the effectiveness of the policy in Massachusetts will be felt after a long period of time. This will determine whether the state would continue to hold the policy or adopt the old policy of criminalizing marijuana. However, the impact of decriminalization appears to be more positive that the costs which Massachusetts state would incur. Although there is fear that marijuana use will increase among the users in this state, there is no clear evidence from other countries which have implemented this policy whether decriminalizing marijuana has a positive relationship with the rate of use. As discussed from above, reduction in enforcement costs incurred by Massachusetts’ criminal justice system implies that such resources will be spent in other national activities to improve welfare of all citizens. There will also be reduction of stigma on marijuana possession offenders which in turn would minimize negative consequences that accompany such criminal offense. Reduction of stigmatization due to decriminalization of marijuana in Massachusetts will have an economic impact on the employees. Employees convicted for minor cases of marijuana possession would not suffer the same consequences as the other major criminals would suffer, and thus their reputation to the employers will still remain. Finally, though Massachusetts did not rely mostly on the available data from other states which had decriminalized the substance, there is need for the state to put more efforts to observe the policy implementation to see whether the anticipated benefits could be attained. Otherwise, the state should abandon the policy and look for other alternatives. References: Baker, Dennis. Constitutionalizing the Harm Principle. Criminal Justice Ethics, 27(7), 2008, 32-46 Earleywine, Mitch. Understanding marijuana: A New Look at the Scientific Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 74-79 Jenkins, Richard. Cannabis and Young People: Reviewing the Evidence. Mahwah, NJ: Praeger 2006. Kay, Amanda. The Agony of Ecstasy: Recognizing the Punitive Approach to United States Drug Policy. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 29(4), 2002, 211-219 Loo, Mirjam & Hoorens, Stijn. Cannabis policy, Implementation and Outcomes. Westport: Quorum Books, 2003, p. 101, 104 Lynch, Timothy. After Prohibition: An Adult approach to Drug Polices in the 21st Century. New York: Greenwood Publishing, 2000, p. 82 Maccoun, Robert & Reuter, Peter. Drug war Heresies: Learning from Other Vices, Times, and Places. London: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Tedeschi, Gwendolyn. Drug Markets: A Classroom Experiment. American Economist, 51, 2007. Williams, Jenny & Cameron, Lisa. Cannabis, Alcohol and Cigarettes: Substitutes or Complements? Economic Record, 77, 2001. Read More