Marijuana legalization: California proposition 64 Essay Example

use of marijuana as stated in the ballot summary.

According to this ballot summary, there are restrictions on the packaging, labeling, marketing, and advertising of the commodity, primarily targeting minors. Additionally, it also permits a policy to revise sentences for prior marijuana convictions.

Background information on California Proposition 64

Being the first state in the United States to legalize marijuana use, California had implemented certain measures to exempt patients and caregivers involved in marijuana cultivation and medical use recommended by physicians. These exemptions were provided either by criminal laws or doctors.

The earlier proposition (215) marked a significant milestone in the path towards the legalization of marijuana. California had previously attempted to include this proposition on the ballot twice, but both endeavors proved fruitless. Those in favor of decriminalizing marijuana voted against these propositions. The initial proposal was made in 1972 with the intention of decriminalization. Almost four decades have elapsed since then, and only proposition 19 managed to reach the ballot in 2010, ultimately being rejected by 53.5% of voters.

Sir Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General at the time, expressed disapproval of President Obama's administration for not effectively enforcing the Controlled Substance Act (Khatapoush & Hallfors, 2004). Holder contended that despite state legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes, individuals involved in its production should still face investigation. Consequently, this stance led to a decrease in support for the proposition.

According to Mason Tvert, a spokesperson, the reason for the failure of the 2010 initiative to legalize marijuana was that it was voted on during the midterm election (Kilmer et.al, 2010). However, in 2012, there was considerable progress in legalizing marijuana in Colorado and Washington. This progress was later followed

by successful votes approving its use in Oregon and Alaska in 2014. These accomplishments caused President Obama to change his position on recreational marijuana use. His main point was that allowing only recreational users would lead to bias.

The president's decision has sparked movements in Florida, Maine, and Nevada to legalize marijuana. Their goal is to have the issue on the ballot by the end of 2016.

California Proposition 64's Impact on Government, Business, and Society

This proposition will have financial effects on state and federal governments. The extent of these consequences relies on factors like tax regulations from both levels of government, changes in marijuana prices and usage, and potential federal laws that may ban marijuana.

• Government:

In general, passing the proposition will lead to an increase in state and local tax revenue.

An estimated amount of over $1 billion in tax revenues is expected to come from the taxation of marijuana products (Pacula, 2010). This could potentially result in reduced overall costs and lead to state and local governments receiving annual revenue worth tens of millions of dollars.

• The generated revenue can be allocated towards various developmental programs, such as youth empowerment initiatives or other specific programs (Pacula, 2010).

It is anticipated that there will be a decrease in the number of people who are imprisoned for marijuana-related offenses, which will have positive effects on society.

• Business

The legalization of marijuana has beneficial consequences for businesses because authorized sellers can make substantial profits from selling marijuana (Pacula, 2010). The rise in demand will lead to higher market prices and contribute to the generation of tax revenue.

The overall outcome is the generation

of employment opportunities and economic prospects in the formal economy.

Key proponents and opponents of the proposition

A discussion has been ongoing among state leaders in California and beyond regarding the legalization of marijuana. This debate revolves around granting licensed stores permission to sell marijuana to individuals over 21 years old, both within California and across America. However, some leaders strongly advocate for the legalization of recreational marijuana in California. The Prime Minister of Canada also supports this notion, a position that has garnered endorsement from Mexico as well. In Colombia, marijuana is already legal for medical purposes, and it is anticipated that four more states will enact laws permitting recreational use by the end of 2016 (Weitzer, 2014).

Supporters

Former governor Gary Johnson is a firm proponent of federal regulation and legalization of marijuana. He has been instrumental in encouraging states to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. As the CEO of a medical marijuana business, Johnson openly talks about his personal use of marijuana for medical purposes, which has helped advance the campaign for marijuana legalization in California and boost its public support. Johnson highlights that marijuana is less hazardous than alcohol and proposes that all American states should prioritize legalizing it over alcohol. Furthermore, he strongly believes that most individuals who consume marijuana are valuable members of society.

The suggestion is that there is no need to criminalize this group. Treating marijuana regulation and enforcement the same as other drugs would put California ahead of countries that do not allow recreational marijuana use. Jill Stein, an American physician, activist, and former governor of Massachusetts State, is a well-known advocate for global legalization of marijuana. She argues that

while marijuana is seen as harmful, it is actually safer than alcohol and cigarettes. However, her argument specifically targets leaders who oppose marijuana legalization bills in various US states.

According to Anderson et. al (2015), the risks associated with the illegal drug market, such as violence, are linked to the prohibition of marijuana. Stein contends that ending this prohibition is crucial in reducing such violence. Additionally, various state officials and organizations in California, including Congressman George Miller, State Senator Mark Leno, and Assembly members Rob Bonta, David Chiu, and Christina Garcia among others express their support for legalizing marijuana.

According to al (2015), opponents of Proposition 64 have expressed their firm opposition towards the legalization of marijuana in California. Various individuals and organizations, such as Bishop Ron Allen of International Faith Based Coalition, have actively campaigned against Proposition 64.

According to Ron Allen, Proposition 64 should not be approved for the legalization of marijuana due to its differences from measures in other US states (Banys & Cermak, 2016). Allen opposes the inclusion of Marijuana Smoking Commercials on TV in Proposition 64 as it contradicts moral expectations. He also proposes setting a limit on the number of pot shops within a single neighborhood. Additional supporters of Allen's viewpoint include John Daily from Recovery Happens Concealing Services, Ron Stark, CEO of Moving to Zero, and Robert DuPont from the Behavior and Health Institute.

The California Hospital Association and the California Police Chiefs Association have both expressed their opposition to Proposition 64. According to the California Police Chiefs Association, this proposition allows for the cultivation of marijuana in close proximity to schools and playgrounds, which goes against local control regulations. Furthermore, the

AAA Foundation for Highway Safety is also against Proposition 64 because they believe it will lead to an increase in car accidents caused by drivers who are under the influence of marijuana (Banys & Cermak, 2016). A similar pattern was seen in Washington State following the legalization of recreational marijuana.

Furthermore, the process of implementing marijuana legalization in California should not only be based on the experiences of other states, but also on its direct impact on the people and the state as a whole.

Arguments in Favor of Marijuana Legalization

The official voter guide presents reasons supporting Proposition 64, which proposes to regulate and tax marijuana use for adults in order to eliminate criminalization. Additionally, the California Medical Association backs marijuana legalization by adopting effective strategies from states that have already legalized adult marijuana use.

The official voters' guide states that the proposition to legalize marijuana is supported because it can protect children and establish a legal framework for adult usage. Additionally, citizens and advocates have expressed their opinions on the matter. For example, Proposition 64 would prevent lawmakers from using general revenue for personal projects (Banys & Cermak, 2016). Supporters also argue that Proposition 64 would reduce law enforcement costs, enabling funds to be used for afterschool programs, drug prevention education, and alcohol addiction treatment.

Despite the compelling reasons provided by the opposition group, all state leaders, citizens, and voters should firmly oppose Proposition 64. The opponents argue that the proposition would lead to marijuana cultivation near schools and parks, which would undermine local control (Weitzer, 2014). They also claim that it would promote advertising of marijuana smoking in the state, negatively impacting youth social behavior. Furthermore, supporting

Proposition 64 is said to contribute to an increase in illicit businesses and drug cartel operations, resulting in a rise in drug trafficking activities.

The AAA Foundation for Highway Safety has reported an increase in marijuana-related car crashes after the legalization of marijuana in Washington State (Banys & Cermak, 2016). If California also legalizes marijuana, it is expected that impaired driving and highway fatalities will rise. Consequently, there have been vigorous campaigns against marijuana use in California. Bishop Ron Allen of the International Faith Based Coalition believes that Proposition 64 targets minorities and argues that legalizing marijuana would further disadvantage already marginalized communities within the state. Ultimately, the legalization of recreational marijuana use in California would pose significant challenges, similar to those witnessed in Washington and other states throughout the USA.

All state leaders and citizens in general should actively campaign against Proposition 64. Additionally, all citizens should firmly stand to vote against the marijuana legalization initiative on 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). The adult use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) and its rational implementation in California. Journal of psychoactive drugs, 48(1), 63-65.

(2016). Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know? Oxford University Press.

Marijuana legalization: lessons from the 2012 state proposals. World Medical & Health Policy, 4(3-4), 4-34.

and Washington: local and national implications. Addiction, 108(5), 837-838.

The article titled "The battle of the bulge: The surprising last stand against state marijuana legalization" by Publius: The Journal of Federalism, explores the resistance towards the legalization of marijuana. Additionally, the study conducted by Khatapoush and Hallfors in 2004 investigates the impact of medical marijuana legalization in California on attitudes towards and usage of marijuana. Lastly, Kilmer and Caulkins have also contributed to this topic.

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.

L. (2010) conducted a study on the impact of marijuana legalization on marijuana consumption. Weitzer, R. (2014) also conducted research on this topic.

Comparing ballot outcomes in four states, the Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice and Criminology explores the legalization of recreational marijuana (2(2)).