Calvin Deng, Deepan Modi, Tommy Pan, Sarthak Patel, Gaurav Thakur Mr.

Boufford AP Government & Politi ! "# De em$er %&"' De riminali(ation of Mari)uana *!!ay Canna$i! u!e ha! e+i!ted for over ten thou!and year!, and i! one of the olde!t rop! u!ed for ultivation. Canna$i! ha! an an ient hi!tory of ritual u!e and i! found inpharma ologi al ult! around the ,orld. -n !o ietie! ,here people di! overed anna$i! hemp, they often di! overed u!e! for mari)uana that in lude hempen fi$er!, oil from the !eed!, the !eed! for food, a medi ine, and for it! nar oti propertie!. The u!e of hemp for rope and fa$ri ,a! u$i.uitou! throughout the "/th and "0th enturie! in the 1nited State!. Sin e the $eginning of the %&th entury, mo!t ountrie! have ena tedla,! again!t the ultivation, po!!e!!ion or tran!fer of anna$i!. The Pure 2ood and Drug A t ,a! then pa!!ed $y the 1nited State! Congre!! in "0&3 and re.uired that ertain !pe ial drug!, in luding tho!e ,ith anna$i!, $e a urately la$eled ,ith ontent!. -n "0'3 theConvention for the Suppre!!ion of the -lli it Traffi in Dangerou! Drug! ,a! on luded in Geneva. The 1S had attempted to in lude the riminali(ation of all a tivitie! in the treaty 4 ultivation, produ tion, manufa ture and di!tri$ution 4 related to the u!e of opium, o a and anna$i! for non5medi al and non5! ientifi purpo!e!. 6o,ever thi! ,a! !hort lived a! The Mari)uana Ta+ A t of "0'# made po!!e!!ion or tran!fer of anna$i! illegal throughout the1nited State! underfederal la,, e+ luding medi al and indu!trial u!e!, in ,hi h an ine+pen!ivee+ i!e ta+ ,a! re.uired. *ver !in e then, mari)uana ha! $een illegal in thi! ountry e+ luding !ome re ent legi!lation, ,hi h provide! for lo al e+ eption!.

-n De em$er %&"%, the 1.S. !tate of7a!hington $e ame the fir!t !tate to offi ially legali(e anna$i! in a !tate la,, ,ith the !tate ofColorado follo,ing lo!e $ehind. Ala!ka, Colorado, and 7a!hington are the only !tate! ,here po!!e!!ion of up to one oun e i! legal. Thi! ha! lead to !ome ontrover!y a! the di!tin tion $et,een federal la, and !tate la,! i! un lear. Gonzales v. Raich 8%&&9: ,a! a de i!ion in ,hi h the 1.S. Supreme Court ruled 835': that even ,hen per!on! are ultivating, po!!e!!ing, or di!tri$uting medi al anna$i! in a ordan e ,ith !tate5approved medi al anna$i! program!, !u h per!on! are violating federal mari)uana la,! and an therefore $e pro!e uted $y federal authoritie!, $e au!e theCommer e Clau!e of the1nited State! Con!titution permit! federal authoritie! to pro!e ute any and all offen!e! of federal mari)uana la,!. Therefore, the !uprema y of federal la, ,a! a!!erted and federal la, enfor ement !till on!ider! mari)uana po!!e!!ion a federal rime even though it may not $e on!idered an offen!e until more lo al )uri!di tion!. After the "03&!, an era hara teri(ed $y ,ide!pread u!e of anna$i! a! a re reational drug, a ,ave of legi!lation in 1nited State! !ought to redu e the penaltie! for the !imple po!!e!!ion of anna$i!, making it puni!ha$le $y onfi! ation and afine rather than impri!onment or more !evere harge!. Ravin v. State ,a! a "0#9 de i!ion $y the Ala!ka Supreme Court, ,hi h held the Ala!ka Con!titution;! right to priva y prote t! an adult;! a$ility to u!e and po!!e!! a !mall amount of mari)uana in the home for per!onal u!e. The Ala!ka Supreme Court there$y $e ame the fir!t<and only< !tate or federal ourt to announ e a on!titutional priva y right that prote t! !ome level of mari)uana u!e and po!!e!!ion. Multiple!tate!, ountie!, and itie! have de riminali(ed anna$i!. Mo!t pla e! that have de riminali(ed anna$i! have ivil fine!, drug edu ation, or drug treatment in pla e ofin ar eration and=or riminal harge! for po!!e!!ion of !mall

amount! of anna$i!, or have made variou! anna$i! offen!e! the lo,e!t priority forla, enfor ement. >ariou! effort! to legali(e re reational mari)uana have $een attempted $y $allot mea!ure via !tate referendum, in luding California Propo!ition "0 8%&"&: and ?regon Mea!ure /& 8%&"%:. The de$ate rage! on in individual !tate! a! they de ide for them!elve! ,hether or not to legali(e mari)uana. Barring an unlikely federal la, legali(ing mari)uana, the $attle ,ill ontinue on lo al level! a! allo,ed ,ithin our federal !y!tem of government. 6o,ever, ,ith re!pe t to mari)uana, the term @de riminali(ation@ ha! generally $een u!ed to de! ri$e la,!, ,hi h redu e the legal !an tion! for po!!e!!ion of !mall amount! to penaltie! other than impri!onment. -t i! important to $ear in mind that even in the !o5 alled @de riminali(ation@ !tate!, the po!!e!!ion of mari)uana remain! again!t the la, and i! !u$)e t to penaltie!, although the ma+imum penalty i! only a fine. Mari)uana poli y ha! t,o goal!A to minimi(e health and !afety ha(ard! a!!o iated ,ith u!e and to minimi(e the !o ial o!t! and adver!e individual on!e.uen e! that re!ult from attempt! to ontrol u!e. The attainment of the!e t,o goal! an $e, to a ertain e+tent, ontradi tory. >igorou! enfor ement of riminal !an tion! again!t po!!e!!ion may redu e level! of u!e, $ut enfor ement al!o e! alate! the !o ial o!t! and adver!e individual on!e.uen e!. Conver!ely, a redu tion in enfor ement may redu e o!t! $ut ontri$ute to an in rea!e in on!umption, and thu! in rea!e health and !afety ri!k!. Thu!, the poli y on!ideration! enter upon $alan ing !o ial o!t! again!t the deterrent impa t of the la,. The !o ial o!t! a!!o iated ,ith mari)uana prohi$ition in ludeA the finan ial o!t! of la, enfor ement, en roa hment on individual right! and freedom! in order to fa ilitate drug enfor ement, the adver!e effe t! of a riminal re ord for the large num$er! of onvi ted

offender!, and the impa t of the penaltie! on the u!er!. The pre!umed $enefit of riminal penaltie! for mari)uana po!!e!!ion i! it! deterrent effe t on u!e. -t i! un lear if riminal penaltie! have a definitive deterrent effe t. -n !urvey!, mo!t nonu!er! ite potential health ha(ard! a! the main rea!on for not u!ing mari)uana, $ut !ome al!o mention fear of puni!hment. The !tronge!t argument for legali(ing mari)uana i! for medi al purpo!e!. Mari)uana an $e u!ed a! a treatment for many different di!ea!e! and health i!!ue!. Begali(ing mari)uana ,ill make it ea!ier for the patient! to re eive the drug and it ,ill make it ea!ier for ! ienti!t to !tudy the drug further to onfirm the drug! medi inal purpo!e!. -t i! e!timated that the 1nited State! government !pend! C"& $illion dollar! a year in it! attempt! to keep mari)uana off the !treet. -f mari)uana i! legali(ed, the 1.S. an ta+ the revenue! and ,ill have additional fund that an $e u!ed for a,arene!! of the drug! effe t! and treatment. Proponent! argue that legali(ation ,ill re!ult in a de rea!e in death! and violen e due to the unregulated $la k market trade or mari)uana. 1nlike al ohol and pre! ription drug!, mari)uana i! not lethal $y overdo!ing. -n %&&9, more than 9'& di!tingui!hed e onomi!t! alled for the legali(ation of anna$i! in an open letter to Pre!ident Bu!h, Congre!!, Governor!, and !tate legi!lature!. The endor!er! in luded on!ervative e onomi!t Milton 2riedman and t,o other Do$el Pri(e5,inner!. A !tudy in %&&0 $y 1.S. Department of 6ealth and 6uman Studie! pu$li!hed that 30.# million Ameri an! are urrent u!er! of to$a o produ t!, "9 million Ameri an! a$u!e al ohol, and only E.% million Ameri an! a$u!e mari)uana. ?n the other !ide of the !pe trum, many oppo!e de riminali(ation of mari)uana and ,ould even propo!e more !tringent regulation. The!e o$)e tion! point out the

detrimental health effe t! of the drug, ,hi h )u!tify the riminali(ation of it! po!!e!!ion and u!e. By making it legal riti ! argue that there ,ill $e a !pike in mari)uana u!e and a$u!e, ,hi h ,ould harm !o iety a! a ,hole. Some !hort term effe t! in lude lo!! of re!tle!!ne!!, e+ itement, hallu ination!, paranoia, p!y hoti epi!ode!, impaired oordination, impaired motor a$ility, mood !,ing!, in rea!ed appetite, and impaired a$ility. The long term effe t! of ontinued mari)uana u!e entail the lo!! of $rain ell!, lung an er, hroni $ron hiti!, energy lo!!, !lo, onfu!ed thinking, apathy and $lood ve!!el $lo kage. Mari)uana may produ e a mild phy!i al dependen e that au!e! minor ,ithdra,al !ymptom! ,hen di! ontinued, in luding nau!ea, in!omnia, irrita$ility, and an+iety. Many theori(e that mari)uana i! a gate,ay drug that ould lead to u!e of other more potent drug! !u h a! heroin and o aine. Deverthele!! there are no ! ientifi !tudie! definitively onfirming a linkage $et,een u!e of mari)uana and other drug!. ?ther! oppo!e legali(ation on the $a!i! that ,hat i! to !ay mari)uana legali(ation ,onFt lead to legali(ation to more harmful nar oti ! !u h a! o aine and heroin. The Drug *nfor ement Admini!tration 8D*A: ha! laimed that anna$i! lead! to in rea!ed rime in the pamphlet entitled @Speaking ?ut Again!t Drug Begali(ationG even though ! ientifi !tudie! reveal no on lu!ive data. Many intere!t group! have $een at the forefront of the ontrover!y !urrounding the de riminali(ation of mari)uana. Several intere!t group! !eek to modify the drug poli y of the 1nited State! to de riminali(e anna$i!. The!e group! in lude Ba, *nfor ement Again!t Prohi$ition, Student! for Sen!i$le Drug Poli y, The Drug Poli y Allian e, the Mari)uana Poli y Pro)e t, D?HMB, Coalition for He! heduling Canna$i!, and Ameri an! for Safe A e!!. The Dational ?rgani(ation for the Heform of Mari)uana Ba,! 8D?HMB:

ha! $een perhap! the mo!t influential of the!e group!. D?HMB;! mi!!ion i! to move pu$li opinion !uffi iently to legali(e the re!pon!i$le u!e of mari)uana $y adult!, and to !erve a! an advo ate for on!umer!, en!uring that the on!umer! have a e!! to high .uality mari)uana that i! !afe, onvenient and afforda$le. Bike a typi al intere!t group, D?HMB !upport! $oth tho!e fighting pro!e ution under mari)uana la,! and tho!e ,orking to legali(e mari)uanaI it provide! information to the pu$li in an effort to put pre!!ure on poli y maker! at a gra!!root! level. 6o,ever many intere!t group! ontinue to !upport the upholding of the $an on mari)uana $e au!e they may potentially !uffer in the event of legali(ation. ?ppo!ition group! in lude variou! organi(ation! ,ithin poli e union!, private pri!on! orporation!, al ohol and $eer ompanie!, pharma euti al orporation!, and pri!on guard union!. 1ltimately the de$ate for the de riminali(ation of mari)uana ha! !hifted from a federal i!!ue to an i!!ue individual !tate! ,ill have to addre!!. Medi inal mari)uana ha! already made inroad! ,ithin many !tate! and look for further de riminali(ation in !ome form to follo, in many more !tate!. The $eauty of the federal !y!tem i! that !tate! ,ill have !ome !ort of autonomy to de ide ,hatF! $e!t for their on!tituent! even though they ,ill fa e federal re!tri tion!.

7?HJS C-T*D 1. *ri , S. n. page. KhttpA==,,,.mi helepolak. om=%&&!pring""=7eeklyLS heduleLfile!=Single.pdfMN. %. Bloom, S.. D.p.. 7e$. "3 De %&"'. KhttpA==,,,.huffingtonpo!t. om=!teve5 $loom=legali(ation5or5$u!t5a5$rL$L##93/E.htmlMN. '. Thomp!on, S. P.. D.p.. 7e$. "3 De %&"'. KhttpA==mari)uanatoday. om=mari)uanahi!tory.phpMN. E. D.p.. 7e$. "3 De %&"'. KhttpA==norml.org=a$outmari)uana=item=real5,orld5 ramifi ation!5of5 anna$i!5le gali(ation5and5de riminali(ation5%MN. 9. Chri!, B.. D.p.. 7e$. "3 De %&"'. KhttpA==,,,. nn. om=%&"%=&3=&E=)u!ti e=ne,5york5mari)uana=inde+.htmlN. 3. Shane, D.. D.p.. 7e$. "3 De %&"'. KhttpA==legali(ationofmari)uana. om=pro!5 and5 on!5of5mari)uana.htmlN. #. Me!!erli, O. D.p., n. d. "3 De %&"'. KhttpA==,,,.$alan edpoliti !.org=mari)uanaLlegali(ation.htmN. /. 2ang, B.. D.p.. 7e$. "3 De %&"'. KhttpA==,,,.repu$li report.org=%&"%=mari)uana5 lo$$y5illegal=N. 0. 7ikipedia, . D.p.. 7e$. "3 De %&"'. KhttpA==en.,ikipedia.org=,iki=De riminali(ationLofLnon5medi alL anna$i!LinLt heL1nitedLState!MN.