Bringing the Green to California

In California today, a bill is up for vote called Proposition 19. Also known as ‘the regulate, control and tax cannabis act,’ this bill has the potential to change and benefit California greatly if passed. Prop 19 would legalize various marijuana related activities while allowing local governments to regulate such activities and collect related fees and taxes. Many rules and regulations come with the passing of this bill as well as more room for local governments to impose their own set of requirements and standards on the retail sale of marijuana. Prop 19 states persons age 21 years and older may possess up to an ounce of marijuana for personal consumption and can grow cannabis at a private residence in a space of up to 25 square feet. It also states that marijuana consumption will only be allowed in certain designated places as well as allowing local governments to control the hours, location, and advertisements of such places. Proposition 19 covers various different regulations as well as penalties and punishments in order to ensure the government has complete control over legal marijuana sales.

            If Proposition 19 hopes to pass, it’s important that Americans examine the United States history with drug policies over the last 200 years. During the 19^th century, opiate drugs were legal and commonly used in a wide variety of products (Joffe, 2004). For example, heroin was used to sedate coughs while cocaine was used to counter the negative effects of morphine. Addiction rates for opiate drugs followed a pattern in booms and drops until the 1960’s when marijuana took over. Over this time period, the perception of risk from regular use of marijuana was very low causing many adolescents to experiment with the drug. Even officials from the Drug Enforcement Agency acknowledged during this time that prohibiting marijuana was detrimental to society. The DEA stated, “the fight against marijuana detracts from more important work of combating heroin use.” (Joffe, 2004). The number of drug incarcerations for marijuana charges dropped in 1960 and remained low until 1979. At this time, the Carter Administration proposed removing criminal sanctions for small possession charges of marijuana. While this was not passed as a federal law, it started the conversation about marijuana that has brought the United States on the brink of legalization today.

            Though the legalization of marijuana has many great benefits, most people are uneducated on how marijuana really affects the body and therefore tend to oppose passing prop 19. However, many of the stigmas attached to smoking marijuana are false or misunderstood. Behind alcohol and tobacco, marijuana is the most popular recreational drug in America. According to government surveys, around 25 million Americans have smoked marijuana in the past year, and more than 14 million do so regularly regardless of the harsh laws against its use. With numbers this high, U.S public policies should reflect and aid this reality by providing marijuana for safe legal use, not denying it. By comparison, marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, 2 completely legal substances. Around 50,000 deaths are attributed each year from alcohol poisoning, and similarly, over 400,000 people die each year from tobacco smoking. On the other hand, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose. According to a prestigious European medical journal, The Lancet, “The smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health…It would be reasonable to judge cannabis as less of a threat…than alcohol or tobacco.” (Gieringer, 1994). In addition, many studies have been conducted concerning how marijuana affects the brain and lungs of a smoker. The editors of the highly respected Consumer Reports published a book by Edward M. Brecher titled, “Licit and illicit drugs” revealing the truth about marijuana and health problems after an exhaustive five year study. In his studies, Brecher disproved many myths about marijuana including the idea that smoking marijuana causes a reduction in motivation. In his study he reports finding that his test subjects “actually perform more motions and expend more energy after smoking marijuana than before” (“Marijuana: Truth on health problems” 2). The study also disproves the idea that marijuana causes brain damage and lung cell damage. For both tests, the results came back negative, stating that “X-rays of lungs were normal in both smokers and nonsmokers,” as well as concluding “long-term marijuana use by these [test subjects] did not produce demonstrable intellectual or ability deficits when they were without the drug for three days. There is no evidence in the results to suggest brain damage.”

Contrary to popular belief, marijuana is not an addictive substance.  According to the Common Sense Drug Policy, “less than 1% of people who consume marijuana do so on a daily or nearly daily basis [and] an even smaller percent develops dependence on marijuana.”  On the other hand, approximately 70% of all cigarette smokers want to quit, but only about 7% stay off nicotine for more than a year. Paired with all the deaths attributed to smoking each year, it is astonishing that something as harmless as smoking marijuana is illegal when cigarettes and other tobacco products are completely legal.

            Not only is the prohibition of marijuana unpractical in a health sense, but it is even more unpractical from a government financial standpoint. A study by the libertarian Cato Institute found that turning cannabis into a regulated commodity would save California roughly $8.7 billion in law enforcement costs annually. Enforcing marijuana prohibition also results in the arrest of over 853,000 people per year, far more than the total number of arrests for all violent crimes combined. Of those charged with marijuana violations, about 88% were charged with possession only, and roughly 30% of those arrested were age 19 or younger. Additionally, marijuana arrests for possession alone made up 44.6% of all drug related arrests in 2008 according to the FBI crime report. These numbers and statistics are entirely too high for a drug that is less harmful to the user than the already legal substances, tobacco and alcohol. Criminalization has only increased marijuana’s profitability as well as the violence that comes with its trafficking. Today there is a group made-up exclusively of retired and still working police officers called the “Law Enforcement Against Prohibition” group. Jack Cole, the executive director of this group, expressed, “It would be an enormous economic stimulus if we stopped wasting so much money arresting and locking people up for nonviolent drug offenses and instead brought new tax revenue from legal sales.”  As a cash-strapped state, California cannot afford to keep prohibiting marijuana. Just decriminalizing marijuana would bring the state extra cash in savings, but full legalization would generate additional profits that local governments can put towards better use. California already collects a staggering $18 million annually from medical marijuana sales, but has the potential to bring $1.3 billion annually from recreational sales. 

            Even though the benefits to legalizing marijuana in California are clear, Proposition 19 opposers raise a strong argument about marijuana being a gateway drug. According to a study by the Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences in New Zealand, “The gateway hypothesis implicitly assumes a casual chain sequence in which …cannabis is used prior to the onset of other illicit drugs and…the use of cannabis increases the likelihood of using other illicit drugs.” (Fergusson, Boden, Horwood, 2006). There is no denying that there is truth in this argument. Almost every time an addict tells their story, it starts off with one about marijuana since a person who smokes marijuana is “more than 104 times more likely to use cocaine than a person who never tries pot,” according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. However, this argument is incredibly flimsy once further analyzed. For example, most children enjoy playing basketball during their childhood. Though they might love playing basketball and continue to do so up through high school and possibly even college, an incredibly tiny percent will go on to play professionally in the National Basketball Association (NBA). Someone who played basketball as a child is more likely to play in the NBA as an adult than someone who never played basketball as a child. This is not to say, however, that all children who played basketball growing up will make it to the NBA. The same can be said about marijuana as a gateway drug. While it is undeniable that a person who smokes marijuana is more likely to try other drugs later on, the vast majority of marijuana users will not graduate to harder illicit drugs.

            Another concern of Proposition 19 opposers is how legalization will affect the youth in California. Many are worried that if legalized, the ease of accessibility of marijuana to the youth will increase. While this is a legitimate concern seeing as many teenagers somehow manage to get their hands on alcohol before turning the age of 21, statistics show fewer minors are able to access it because of this age law. It’s easier for the government to keep underage people from drinking because retailers of such products with age laws attached are in fear of losing their business or being arrested for selling to minors. This causes anyone underage to find someone old enough to be the “middle-man,” per se, to make their purchase for them. Typically, it is very difficult for minors without much older siblings to find a middle man to make their purchase for them because they usually only associate with other minors close to their age group. However, with an illegal substance that requires no age to purchase, teens are finding marijuana to be more readily accessible in its illicit state than tobacco or alcohol products. If made legal, the ease of access to marijuana for minors will be much more difficult, and a drop in underage arrests will be seen.

            In conclusion, the passing of Proposition 19 would bring many great benefits to the state of California. Not only is legalization a practical idea when looking at health effects, but it also has the potential to generate an enormous legal profit for California’s local governments. Even though some arguments opposing legalization are strong and do raise legitimate concerns, Proposition 19 has California’s best interests at heart. Each day, Proposition 19 gains more support because citizens of California are starting to see that the benefits to the passing of this bill outweigh the mild risks.