Discussion and Key Policy Analysis (4 pages)
There are essentially three policy options that can be used to successfully resolve the nation’s conflict with marijuana. The first, and most simple way to handle the dilemma, would be to pertain to the status quo. In other words, the policy option’s aim would be to continue perceiving marijuana as an illegal drug within the United States. Most importantly, the citizens who cultivate or distribute the drug will continue to be criminalized and will ultimately be punished to the fullest extent of the law. An advantage that arises from the policy option would be the fact that the public will be safer from the influence of the drug. Marijuana is incomparable to alcohol— in fact, some argue that it has …show more content…
It is understood by many scholars that “the prohibition [of marijuana] costed California an estimate of about $280-370 million per year” (Caulkins, 2010). The costs vary from on the instruments of policy that were used, but most of the debt would come from using the paying the policemen and the DEA to enforce the laws. Furthermore, the second disadvantage would be the fact that it would continue contributing to the rise of crime. Many people, including, but not limited to: Baltimore mayor Kurt Schmoke, Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, and former secretary of state George Shultz—have argued that “drug prohibition actually causes more crime and other harms than it prevents” (Boaz, 1999). The reason for the negative impact due to the fact that drug addicts are “forced to commit crimes to pay for a habit” that would have been affordable and obtainable if it were legal (Boaz, 1999). Furthermore, the criminalization of marijuana users leads to inability for drug traffickers to settle disputes with other traders seller or between rival sellers; the unresolved disagreements would then result contracts are breached, the result in violent retaliation—or in other cases, “open warfare in the streets” (Boaz, …show more content…
The federal government has the right to continue the prevention of production, sale, and use of marijuana under the federal mandate “and to block any state policies to the contrary” (Rauch, 2013). The second disadvantage outlines the fact that there will most likely be more smuggling involved, now that it is easier to obtain marijuana from a legitimate source. The probable case can be related to a similar instances in 2006 where “almost 19% of tobacco sales in California were of smuggled cigarettes, depriving the state of between $50 and $103 million in cigarette excise tax revenue (Caulkins et al.,
There are essentially three policy options that can be used to successfully resolve the nation’s conflict with marijuana. The first, and most simple way to handle the dilemma, would be to pertain to the status quo. In other words, the policy option’s aim would be to continue perceiving marijuana as an illegal drug within the United States. Most importantly, the citizens who cultivate or distribute the drug will continue to be criminalized and will ultimately be punished to the fullest extent of the law. An advantage that arises from the policy option would be the fact that the public will be safer from the influence of the drug. Marijuana is incomparable to alcohol— in fact, some argue that it has …show more content…
It is understood by many scholars that “the prohibition [of marijuana] costed California an estimate of about $280-370 million per year” (Caulkins, 2010). The costs vary from on the instruments of policy that were used, but most of the debt would come from using the paying the policemen and the DEA to enforce the laws. Furthermore, the second disadvantage would be the fact that it would continue contributing to the rise of crime. Many people, including, but not limited to: Baltimore mayor Kurt Schmoke, Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, and former secretary of state George Shultz—have argued that “drug prohibition actually causes more crime and other harms than it prevents” (Boaz, 1999). The reason for the negative impact due to the fact that drug addicts are “forced to commit crimes to pay for a habit” that would have been affordable and obtainable if it were legal (Boaz, 1999). Furthermore, the criminalization of marijuana users leads to inability for drug traffickers to settle disputes with other traders seller or between rival sellers; the unresolved disagreements would then result contracts are breached, the result in violent retaliation—or in other cases, “open warfare in the streets” (Boaz, …show more content…
The federal government has the right to continue the prevention of production, sale, and use of marijuana under the federal mandate “and to block any state policies to the contrary” (Rauch, 2013). The second disadvantage outlines the fact that there will most likely be more smuggling involved, now that it is easier to obtain marijuana from a legitimate source. The probable case can be related to a similar instances in 2006 where “almost 19% of tobacco sales in California were of smuggled cigarettes, depriving the state of between $50 and $103 million in cigarette excise tax revenue (Caulkins et al.,