Marijuana Use Assessment

Stakeholders interested in the legalization of marijuana include much more than simply recreational users of the drug. As outlined by Harewood, substance abuse councils funded by the government, drug companies, legal professionals, farmers, families, and medicinal users all carry a vested interest in the outcome of California initiative #13-0051 (2012, p. 1). Each group has its own unique interests to consider.

In light of these interests, broad assessments must be applied. In the case of substance abuse councils, legalization could result in an increase in enrollment for individuals seeking drug abuse resistance support (Taylor & Cohen, 2014, p. 4). However, economically, revenue from the legal taxation of marijuana would result in allocation into a Public Benefit Fund of which a portion would be earmarked for drug abuse education and treatment (Taylor & Cohen, 2014, p. 5). For drug companies, the stakes rest with finding a proper way to profit from this titanic shift in California law. Legal professionals will focus on finding a proper legal structure to manage this new market. Farmers could stand to benefit greatly from the implementation of marijuana, as they will have a new crop to grow. On the other hand, families with children undergoing a transformative educational experience may object to the legalization of a drug that could serve as a distraction to the learning process. Finally, medicinal users of the drug will view this proposal as an opportunity to highlight the benefits found in this drug (Harewood, 2012, p. 2). Potential approval of this legislation will impact all stakeholders involved to varying degrees.

The significance of addressing the issue of marijuana reform stands to influence the lives and finances of many citizens as the measure would markedly reduce costs in the maintenance of the prison system as well as costs in the court for processing drug offenders—such a savings would amount to the low hundreds of millions of dollars (Taylor, 2013, p. 1). Not addressing the issue by rejecting the provision would extend the status quo as it currently stands. Without a doubt, minority groups will be most impacted by drug reform as opposed to Caucasians. The war on drugs has taken on racist undertones where "in the counties with the 15 highest median household incomes (between $85K–$115K), Blacks are two to eight times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than Whites" (Romero, 2013, p. 17). This comes in spite of ACLU reports that present research finding Blacks and Whites use marijuana equally (Romero, 2013, p. 17). The demand for resources relating to drug enforcement finds its root in grant systems like the Byrn Justice Assistance performance measures where law enforcement agencies directly profit from increased drug-related arrests. These quantitative arrest figures give a financial incentive for law enforcement agencies to target drug enforcement (Romero, 2013, p. 17). Such figures imply major discrepancies in the current war on drugs.

As most citizens are well aware, the current economic status of the United States rests in a state of upheaval. With current US debt resting at over $17.3 trillion ($54,516 per citizen), a concerned public dialogue has occurred on both sides of the political spectrum concerning ways to effectively service the deficit, including an argument against raising income taxes (Foley, 2012, p. 1). The notion of raising taxes for a perceived luxury item such as recreational marijuana use, however, rests in a different light. In a summary of fiscal effects, Taylor and Cohen report an overall savings of around $100 million in drug-related incarceration expenses and an overall tax revenue increase between $100-300 million (2014, p. 5). Regulations concerning distribution could potentially impact existing medical cannabis dispensaries less than 600 feet from public schools as per local zoning laws and other potential regulations (Taylor & Cohen, 2014, p. 2). Overall, the cost-benefit analysis of California legalization of marijuana as presented by Pacula indicated that further information is needed (2014, p. 1). Pacula highlights four pertinent themes for consideration. First, prohibition augments the price of production drastically on the black market by at least 400%. Second, substantial taxing of marijuana distributors will only encourage vendors to stay on the black market as they still recoup the cost of production. Third, high prices keep the known effects of marijuana low along with rates of use among consumers. Pacula concludes by casting serious doubt over initial estimates that tax revenue could equal $1.4 billion (Pacula, 2009, pp. 1–3). As such, the results are more complicated than they may initially seem.

Finally, a thorough analysis of the legalization of marijuana must center on the profession of nursing and the health care system. According to Daniel Fuster, marijuana use frequency did not significantly correlate with emergency room use, hospitalization, or comorbidity (2013, p. 133). This research should play a central role in any legislative deliberations.

To achieve these conclusions, thorough methodology practices were implemented. The main independent variable consisted of the frequency of marijuana use between daily use, less than daily use, and none at all. According to Fuster, outcomes assessed were past 3-month emergency department or hospital utilization, the presence of medical comorbidity (Charlson index ≥ 1), and health status with the EuroQol. We used separate multivariable regression models adjusting for age, sex, tobacco, and other substance use (2013, p. 133).

As marijuana is the most commonly used illegal drug, such a study provides ground-breaking evidence in a field where little previous study has been extensively conducted (Fuster, 2013, p. 133). As such, its ramifications in the context of financial cost to the system are not immediately clear as compared to the use of other drugs deemed illegal by the US Department of Justice.

References

Taylor, M. (2013, December 6). 2013 initiative analysis: The marijuana control, legalization and revenue act of 2014 (amendment #1-S). Legislative Analyst's Office. Retrieved from http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2013/130606.aspx

Foley, D. (2012, October 5). A National Debt FAQ. Intellectual Takeout. Retrieved from http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/articles-commentary-blog/national-debt-faq

Fuster, D. (2013). No detectable association between frequency of marijuana use and health or healthcare utilization among primary care patients who screen positive for drug use. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 29(1), 133-139.

Harewood, L. (2012, February 1). Issue: The legalisation of marijuana. Global Change Leader. Retrieved from http://globalchangeleader.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/integration-homework_liesl-harewood1.pdf

Pacula, R. L. (2009, October 28). Legalizing marijuana: Issues to consider before reforming California state law. RAND. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/ pubs/testimonies/2009/RAND_CT334.pdf

Taylor, M., & Cohen, M. (2014). Elections code section 9005. Sacramento, CA: Legislative Analyst's Office.

Romero, A. (2013, June 4). The war on marijuana in black and white. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/1114413-mj-report-rfs-rel1.pdf