Marijuana legalization-California proposition 64

Marijuana legalization-California proposition 64

Introduction

California proposition 64 seeks to reform the realistic approach to the marijuana policy in California. This has been sparked by the heated up debates that have increased in the last two decades over marijuana legalization in the U.S states. The major concern is a review on the laws of licencing of stores to sell cannabis to people above 21 years of age. This has been a testament of the Coloradoans and the ability to work together with the people (Anderson, Hansen & Rees, 2015). However, Hickenlooper has praised all the opposing sides for holding on the facts that he believes have increased the legalisation roll out. In the union of the U.S states, California was the first state to pass laws allowing legal consumption of marijuana. This was first witnessed in the proposition 215 in 1996.

Two decades down the line, the legalization of marijuana has sparked various debates that are aimed at reviewing the poorly regulated system of marijuana cultivation. The California proposition 64 is based on the pros and cons. According to the proposition pro’s, recreational use of marijuana in California has been licenced provided it is used on the right way. The proposition cons argue that legalization of marijuana in the California state will hurt the youth and the families (Hawken et.al, 2013). Kleiman, a New York professor who is also an expert on issues surrounding marijuana use has spoken about the same. He has been among the many people in the U.S that have spoken about the issue giving different reactions to it.

The ballot summary allows marijuana use by adults beginning 21 years and licences state registered stores to regulate and sell marijuana. Following this licence, a state exercise tax of 15% is imposed on the retail sale of marijuana products as well as a $9.25 per ounce of marijuana flowers and a $2.75 per ounce of leaves (Caulkins, Kilmer & Kleiman, 2016). The summary places a tax reduction on the medical use of marijuana. According to this ballot summary, packaging, labelling marketing and advertising of the commodity are restricted. This is more of to the minors but also authorises a resentence policy to prior marijuana convictions.

Background information to the California proposition 64

Having been the first state to legalize marijuana use in the United States, the California state had enacted some measures that exempted some patients and care givers who did the cultivation of marijuana and those who used it for medical purposes that had been recommended to them by physicians. This is either from criminal laws or even doctors. The earlier proposition (215) had been considered as a victory to the turning point in legalising marijuana. On the earlier years, this proposition had reached the ballot twice in California but had no success. This two attempts were defeated by the voters who sought to decriminalize use of marijuana.

The earliest proposition was in 1972 and which had also worked to decriminalize marijuana. Nearly 40 years have passed and since this time only the proposition 19 reached the ballot on 2010 which was defeated by a 53.5 % of all the total voters who voted No. this prompted the U.S Attorney General of the time sir Erick Holder to criticize president Obama’s administration arguing that it had to vigorously enforce the controlled substance act (Khatapoush & Hallfors, 2004). Those individuals and organisations that participated in the manufacturing of marijuana for recreational use had to be questioned. This was regardless of whether this acts had been legalised by the state law. This was followed by a fall of the proposition support.

The marijuana spokesperson, Mason Tvert can in arguing that the 2010 initiative had only failed since the voting process can in the midterm election (Kilmer et.al, 2010). Major victories on marijuana legalisation were witnessed in Colorado and Washington in the year 2012. This was followed by a successful vote that approved use of marijuana in Oregon and Alaska in the year 2014. Following the success of marijuana legalization quests in the four states, the president changed his tune on the recreational marijuana use. Obamas main argument was that there was no sense to allow recreational users only as this would be a bias. The president’s decision has seen the quest for marijuana legalization extend to Florida, Maine and Nevada that aim to appear in the ballot by the end of 2016.

Effects of the California proposition 64 to the government business and society

This proposition has a fiscal impact that generally affected the state by itself and the federal government. This is because, measures of fiscal effects vary significantly depending on factors such as the regulation of taxes by both the state and the federal government (Kilmer et.al, 2010). This is also influenced by the way marijuana prices change as well as its consumption changes and whether the federal government enacts laws to prohibit marijuana.

1. Government

In general, allowing the proposition to pass will lead to a growth in the net state and local tax revenues. An approximate of over $1 billion will be raised as tax revenues from the taxation of marijuana products (Pacula, 2010). It is also expected that the net reduced costs would be reached. Nearly, tens of millions of dollars could be annually raised to the state and local governments.

1. Society

On the societal basis, the generated revenues can be directed to developmental programs such as the youth empowerment programs or in other specific basis (Pacula, 2010). More often, the number of marijuana offenders held at any time in the prisons and county jails is likely to decrease. This is a positive effect to the society.

1. Business

Businesses are likely to be favoured by the legalization of marijuana use as those agents authorised to sell marijuana make great revenues (Pacula, 2010). The increased demands will favour market rates thus generating tax revenues. The overall result is job creation in the resulting economic opportunities in the formal economy.

 Major supporters and opponents of the proposition

There has been a debate from state leaders in both within and outside California about legalization of marijuana. The debate concerns legalizing only licensed stores in California and America in general to trade marijuana with people above 21years. However, some of the leaders have showed their unflinching support towards the idea of legalizing marijuana for recreational use in California. The prime minister for Canada agrees with the idea of legalizing marijuana a move that has been accepted by Mexico. In Columbia, marijuana has been legalized for medical use and the move suggests that four more states are likely to pass the bill allowing recreational use of marijuana before the end of 2016 (Weitzer, 2014).

Supporters

Gary Johnson governor, has shown his support on marijuana regulation and legalization at federal level. His efforts on legalization of marijuana has forced states to legalize marijuana use for recreational purposes. Johnson has also been seen openly discussing his personal use of marijuana for medical purposes at the time he served as the CEO of medical marijuana business. This has moved the attention to the California state where demands on marijuana legalization have increased with time. Johnson argues that marijuana use is safer than alcohol and therefore all states in America should consider legalizing marijuana at the expense of alcohol. He also adds to his idea that most of marijuana users are today’s American productive citizens. This means that no decisions should be raised to criminalize this group. Managing marijuana and enforcing its use just like any other drug would place California in a better place than countries that do not allow marijuana use for recreational purposes.

Jill Stein, an American physician and activist, who also served as a governor of Massachusetts State is also a recognized supporter of marijuana legalization worldwide. She argued that, though marijuana is said to be harmful, it is much safer as compared to alcohol and cigarette use. However, her sole claim lies on leaders who have been actively advocating for opposition of marijuana legalization bills in various USA states. The dangers of marijuana arise from the violence of underground drug economy that has resulted from its prohibition (Anderson et. al, 2015). According to Stein, this violence could only be reduced by ending the legalization problem. In addition, number of current and former state officials and organizations that have been formed to back up the act of legalizing marijuana in California. The officials include; Congressman George Miller, State Senator Mark Leno and various Assembly members such as Rob Bonta, David Chiu and Christina Garcia among others (Anderson et. al, 2015).

Opponents

On the other hand, major individuals and organizations have showed their strong stand against Proposition 64. They have managed to hold campaigns against marijuana legalization in California. For instance, Bishop Ron Allen of International Faith Based Coalition has actively advocated for No on Proposition 64 campaigns. According to Ron Allen, Proposition 64 is different from legalization measures in other USA states and therefore legalization of marijuana should not be done under the influence of other states (Banys & Cermak, 2016). He argues that Proposition 64 that stipulates for Marijuana Smoking Commercials on TV should be voted against as it is against the expected moral codes. He also adds that there should be a limit on the number of pot shops that can be placed in a single neighbourhood. Other individuals who have seconded his idea are; John daily of Recovery Happens Concealing Services, Ron Stark, CEO Moving to Zero and Robert DuPont of Behaviour and Health Institute.

California Hospital Association and California Police Chiefs Association have actively campaigned against voting for Proposition 64. For instance, California Police Chiefs Association proposes that Proposition 64 tramples local control by permitting indoor cultivation of marijuana next door to schools and playgrounds.

The AAA Foundation for Highway Safety campaigns against Proposition 64 on the basis that it would lead to an increased marijuana related car crushes as a result of drivers turning impaired (Banys & Cermak, 2016). The same case has been witnessed severally in Washington State after legalizing the use of marijuana for recreational purposes. In addition, steps to be taken upon marijuana legalization should not be based on its success in other states but instead upon the real impacts on California citizens and state in general.

Arguments on legalization of marijuana.

There are official arguments provided in official voter guide in favour of marijuana legalization Proposition. First, Proposition 64 provides for control, regulation and taxation of adult marijuana use that ends responsible criminalization on marijuana use. Secondly, California Medical Association supports legalization of marijuana because this idea seems to incorporate best practices form state that have already put a tick on legalization of adult marijuana use.

Official voters’ guide also supports marijuana legalization on the argument that the proposition protects children and creates safe and legal comprehensive system for adult use of marijuana. Apart from official arguments laid on marijuana legalization, citizens and other supporters in general have raised their feeling towards the proposition. For instance, Proposition 64 would prevent legislators from using general revenue in their own pet projects (Banys & Cermak, 2016). Secondly, they argue that Proposition 64 would decrease law enforcement costs that would otherwise provide funding for afterschool programs, drug prevention education and alcohol addiction treatment.

On the other hand, the opposition group has clearly outlined major reasons as to why all the state leaders, citizens and voters in general should stand firmly against Proposition 64. The opposition supporters of Proposition 64 argue that it would lead to marijuana growing near schools and parks, which would erode local control (Weitzer, 2014). Secondly, the proposition would encourage marijuana smoking advertisements in the state which would negatively impact on youth social behaviour.

Thirdly, the opposition group argues that voting for Proposition 64 would lead to an increase in black market businesses and drug cartel activity that would result to an increase in drug trafficking operations. The AAA Foundation for Highway Safety has recently reported that high incidents of marijuana related car crushes have been witnessed since marijuana use became legalized in Washington State (Banys & Cermak, 2016). Similarly, legalizing marijuana in California would encourage impaired driving and highway fatalities. This issue has facilitated to hot campaigns against marijuana use in California. Finally, Bishop Ron Allen of International Faith Based Coalition argues that Proposition 64 is an arranged attack on minorities and therefore legalizing marijuana would break the existing underprivileged neighbourhoods in the state.

In conclusion, it is clearly evident that legalizing marijuana use for recreational purposes in California would be a cause of major challenges in the state as it has happened in Washington and other states in USA. All state leaders and citizens in general should actively campaign against Proposition 64. Also, all citizens should stand firmly to vote against marijuana legalization initiative come November, 18 2016.

References

Anderson, D. M., Hansen, B., & Rees, D. I. (2015). Medical marijuana laws and teen marijuana   use. American Law and Economics Review, 17(2), 495-528.

Banys, P., & Cermak, T. L. (2016). Marijuana Legalization in California: Rational Implementation of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA). Journal of psychoactive             drugs, 48(1), 63-65.

Caulkins, J. P., Kilmer, B., & Kleiman, M. A. (2016). Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone      Needs to Know? Oxford University Press.

Caulkins, J. P., Lee, M. A., & Kasunic, A. M. (2012). Marijuana legalization: lessons from the       2012 state proposals. World Medical & Health Policy, 4(3-4), 4-34.

Hawken, A., Caulkins, J., Kilmer, B., & Kleiman, M. (2013). Quasi‐legal cannabis in Colorado     and Washington: local and national implications. Addiction, 108(5), 837-838.

Kamin, S. (2015). The battle of the bulge: The surprising last stand against state marijuana            legalization. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 45(3), 427-451.

Khatapoush, S., & Hallfors, D. (2004). “Sending the wrong message”: did medical marijuana       legalization in California change attitudes about and use of marijuana?. Journal of Drug   Issues, 34(4), 751-770.

Kilmer, B., Caulkins, J. P., Pacula, R. L., MacCoun, R. J., & Reuter, P. (2010). Altered state?:      assessing how marijuana legalization in California could influence marijuana         consumption and public budgets. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Pacula, R. L. (2010). Examining the Impact of Marijuana Legalization on Marijuana          Consumption.

Weitzer, R. (2014). Legalizing recreational marijuana: comparing ballot outcomes in four   states. Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice and Criminology, 2(2).