DOCSLIB.ORG

Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Daniel G. Orenstein, JD, MPH Acknowledgements & Disclosures . Paper in review - Co-author: Stanton A. Glantz, PhD . Major data sources - FollowTheMoney.org (National Institute on Money in State Politics) - Ballotpedia.org . Funding Sources: - National Institute on Drug Abuse grant DA-043950. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Other required disclosures: - Industry funding: None - Off-label medication uses discussed: None - Other conflicts of interest: None 2 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Where are we? 3 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Current Cannabis Legal Landscape in US ME WA VT NH MT ND MA MN OR NY ID WI RI As of SD MI CT WY PA MD NJ DE IA OH Nov. 7, 2018 NE IL IN NV WV VA Washington D.C. UT CA CO KY KS MO NC TN SC OK AR AZ NM GA AL MS AK TX LA FL Recreational/Adult Use Decriminalization HI Medical (Full) Passed in 2018 4 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Current Cannabis Legal Landscape in US . Recreational / Adult Use - 10 states + DC nearly 1/4 US pop. 10 of 11 via ballot initiative (all but VT) . Medical - 33 states + DC over 2/3 US pop. 19 of 34 via ballot initiative “Prohibition” “Legalization” 5 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Overall US Public Opinion Over time: By age group: Source: Hartig, H., Geiger, A., Pew Research Center, “About six-in-ten Americans support marijuana legalization. Oct. 8, 2018. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/08/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/ 6 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Questions to Answer 1. What happened in these elections? 2. Who funded legalization advocates and opponents? 3. What factors were associated with electoral outcomes? 4. What does all this tell us about legalization, its future, and the role of health advocates? 7 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Data Collection 8 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Data Collection Contribution Data . FollowTheMoney.org - All contributions (direct, in-kind) to registered ballot committees . Excluding one committee to another - OpenSecrets.org for PACs . Election results and vote totals: Ballotpedia.org . Cannabis industry affiliations - FTM business data; Google search - National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) membership 9 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 States Included in Analysis ME WA VT NH MA MT ND MN OR NY RI ID WI SD MI CT WY PA MD NJ DE IA OH NE IL IN NV WV VA Washington D.C. UT CA CO KY KS MO NC TN SC OK AR AZ NM GA AL MS AK TX LA FL 32 Initiatives HI 16 States 10 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Elections Included in Analysis State 2004 2006 2008 2009 2010 2012 2014 2015 2016 Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Florida Maine Massachusetts Michigan Montana Nevada North Dakota Ohio Oregon South Dakota Washington 11 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Initiative Classification . Decriminalization [n=3] - Reduce or eliminate penalties for possession and/or cultivation - Without system for lawful sale . Medical Legalization [n=15] - Possession and/or cultivation based on medical condition - Sales approved or licensed - Vary by qualifying conditions, program structure, or licensure - CBD-only/low-THC-only programs not included . Recreational Legalization [n=14] - Possession and/or cultivation by any adult - Sales approved or licensed 12 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 What happened? 13 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 What Happened: Initiative Outcomes 14 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Some Initial Definitions . % in Favor: votes in favor / total votes cast . Total PRO: contributions to ballot committees supporting - Per-Voter PRO: Total PRO / votes cast . Total CON: contributions to ballot committees opposing - Per-Voter CON: Total CON / votes cast . PRO Funding Advantage Score: measure of relative funding - −5 to 5; each point = 10% funding advantage - ((Total PRO/(Total PRO+Total CON))*100−50)/10 - PRO advantage if > 0; CON advantage if < 0 15 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Initiative Funding: Summary Statistics Summary Statistics for State Election and Contribution Data Total PRO Total CON PRO Funding % in Favor Per-Voter PRO Per-Voter CON Advantage ($ Million) ($ Million) Score Sum -- $139.0 $38.1 -- -- -- Min 36% 0.03 0 $0.10 $0.00 –3.5 Max 71% 29.3 8.7 $7.65 $3.42 5.0 Mean 52% 4.3 1.2 $1.92 $0.46 3.3 SD 9% 6.3 2.1 $2.08 $0.83 2.0 Median 53% 1.7 0.3 $1.40 $0.15 4.1 IQR 45% – 58% 0.6 – 6.3 0.03 – 1.7 $0.46 – $2.35 $0.02 – $0.51 2.3 – 4.7 16 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Total Contributions by State PRO CON PRO CON PRO CON State State State ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) ($M) AK04 1.24 0.03 CA10 4.65 0.40 OH15 21.52 2.20 MT04 0.71 0 OR10 0.16 0.04 AR16 1.66 0.31 OR04 0.73 0 SD10 0.09 0.03 AZ16 6.58 8.67 CO06 0.23 1.29 AR12 1.55 0.05 CA16 29.34 2.51 NV06 4.40 0.32 CO12 3.53 0.74 FL16 6.20 3.47 SD06 5.73 4k MA12 1.38 0.02 ME16 3.47 0.28 CA08 8.52 3.24 OR12 0.56 0.07 MA16 6.88 3.08 MA08 1.77 0.09 WA12 6.45 0.02 MT16 0.33 0.23 MI08 2.26 0.34 AK14 1.13 0.19 NV16 3.70 3.77 ME09 0.18 0 FL14 8.17 6.34 ND16 0.03 0 AZ10 0.87 0.03 OR14 10.22 0.33 5 Lowest 5 Highest 17 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Contribution Changes over Time Dependent Variable Change Per Year (b) SE R2 Total PRO ($1,000) $587* $258 0.15 Total CON ($1,000) $205* $83 0.17 Per-Voter PRO $0.07 $0.09 0.02 Per-Voter CON $0.08* $0.03 0.15 PRO Funding Advantage Score –0.12 0.09 0.06 * p < .05 18 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Contributions by Initiative Type: PRO Rank-Sum** Median KW p* ab (Pcrit=0.0170) ac (Pcrit=0.0253) bc (Pcrit=0.0500) Total PRO ($1M) Significant Pairwise Results Recreationala 4.53 Decriminalizationb 1.77 0.009 Recreational > Medical Medicalc 0.73 Per-Voter PRO Significant Pairwise Results Recreationala $2.97 Decriminalizationb $0.59 0.001 Recreational > Medical Medicalc $0.52 * p values, Kruskal-Wallis test ** post hoc pairwise comparisons, Mann-Whitney Rank-Sum with Holm-Sidak Adjustment (Family Error Rate, αT=0.05) 19 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Contributions by Initiative Type: CON Rank-Sum** Median KW p* ab (Pcrit=0.0170) ac (Pcrit=0.0253) bc (Pcrit=0.0500) Total CON ($1M) Significant Pairwise Results Decriminalizationa 1.29 Recreationalb 0.36 0.028 Decriminalization > Medical Medicalc 0.03 Per-Voter CON Significant Pairwise Results Recreationala $0.33 Decriminalizationb $0.25 0.033 Recreational > Medical Medicalc $0.03 * p values, Kruskal-Wallis test ** post hoc pairwise comparisons, Mann-Whitney Rank-Sum with Holm-Sidak Adjustment (Family Error Rate, αT=0.05) 20 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Contributions by Initiative Type: Summary . Significant differences by type: - Recreational > Medical . Total advocate contribution . Per-voter advocate contribution . Total opponent contribution - Decriminalization > Medical . Per-voter opponent contribution 21 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Who funded advocacy and opposition? 22 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 More Definitions . Industry: does not include major advocacy groups (e.g., MPP, DPA), though there are known links and synergies . Industry Contributions: contributions from donors affiliated with cannabis industry (among 10 largest donors) . Cannabis Industry Share of Top 10: % of 10 largest contributions by industry-affiliated donors 23 The Grassroots of Grass: Cannabis Legalization Ballot Initiative Contributions and Outcomes, 2004-2016 Major Contributors: PRO-Legalization 20 Largest Pro-Legalization Advocate Donors (1-9) 20 Largest Pro-Legalization Advocate Donors (10-20) Donor Total ($M) States Donor Total ($M) States AK, AR, AZ, CO, Bob Wilson $2.8 CA Marijuana Policy Project $16.4 MA, ME, MI, MT, ND, NV, OR, SD George Soros 2.8 CA, MA New Approach PAC 10.6 FL, MA, ME, OR RC Operations LLC 2.3 OH Sean Parker & Affiliated 8.9 CA Entities Bridge Property Group LLC 2.1 OH Morgan & Morgan 6.6 FL Verdure GCE LLC 2.1 OH Fund for Policy Reform 6.1 CA OhioVen LLC 2.1 OH AZ, CA, FL, ME, Drug Policy Alliance 6.1 ND, NV, OR, WA DGF LLC 2.0 OH Green Light Acquisitions LLC 4.9 OH Barbara A.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Actors and Incentives in Cannabis Policy Change: an Interdisciplinary Approach to Legalization Processes in the United States and in Uruguay
    1 UNIVERSIDADE DE SÃO PAULO INSTITUTO DE RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS Fernanda Mena Actors and incentives in cannabis policy change: an interdisciplinary approach to legalization processes in the United States and in Uruguay São Paulo 2020 FERNANDA MELLO MENA 2 Actors and incentives in cannabis policy change: an interdisciplinary approach to legalization processes in the United States and in Uruguay Original Version Ph.D. Thesis presented to the Graduate Program in International Relations at the International Relations Institute, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil, to obtain the degree of Doctor in Science. Advisor: Prof. Dr. Leandro Piquet Carneiro São Paulo 2020 Autorizo a reprodução e divulgação total ou parcial deste trabalho, por qualquer meio convencional ou eletrônico, para fins de estudo e pesquisa, desde que citada a fonte. 3 Catalogação na Publicação* Instituto de Relações Internacionais da Universidade de São Paulo Mena, Fernanda Actors and incentives in cannabis policy change: an interdisciplinary approach to legalization processes in the United States and in Uruguay / Fernanda Mello Mena -- Orientador Leandro Piquet Carneiro. São Paulo: 2020. 195p. Tese (doutorado). Universidade de São Paulo. Instituto de Relações Internacionais. 1. Relações exteriores (História) – Brasil 2. Relações internacionais (História) - Brasil 3. Política externa – Brasil I. Mena, Fernanda II. Actors and incentives in cannabis policy change: an interdisciplinary approach to legalization processes in the United States and in Uruguay CDD 327.81 4 MENA, Fernanda Actors and incentives in cannabis policy change: an interdisciplinary approach to legalization processes in the United States and in Uruguay Ph. D. Thesis presented to the International Relations Institute, at the University of São Paulo, Brazil, to obtain the degree of Doctor in Science.
    [Show full text]
  • Hearing Unit Cover and Text
    Public Hearing before ASSEMBLY OVERSIGHT, REFORM, AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS COMMITTEE “The public hearing will be held in accordance with Article IX, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution and Rule 19:3 of the General Assembly” Assembly Concurrent Resolution 840 “Proposes constitutional amendment to legalize cannabis for personal, non-medical use by adults who are age 21 years or older, subject to regulation by Cannabis Regulatory Commission” LOCATION: Committee Room 16 DATE: December 12, 2019 State House Annex 10:00 a.m. Trenton, New Jersey MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE PRESENT: Assemblyman Joe Danielsen, Chair Assemblyman Eric Houghtaling, Vice Chair Assemblywoman Yvonne Lopez Assemblywoman Annette Quijano Assemblyman Ronald S. Dancer Assemblyman Brian E. Rumpf ALSO PRESENT: Stephanie M. Wozunk Martin Sumners Natalie Ghaul Office of Legislative Services Assembly Majority Assembly Republican Committee Aide Committee Aide Committee Aide Hearing Recorded and Transcribed by The Office of Legislative Services, Public Information Office, Hearing Unit, State House Annex, PO 068, Trenton, New Jersey TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Karen O’Keefe, Esq. Director State Policies Marijuana Policy Project 5 William J. Caruso, Esq. Trustee New Jersey Cannabis Industry Association 8 Sarah Fajardo Policy Director American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU) 11 Scott Rudder President New Jersey CannaBusiness Association 11 Barbara Eames Representing Morris Patriots 15 Shawn Hyland Director of Advocacy Family Policy Alliance of New Jersey 18 Justin Escher Alpert, Esq. Private Citizen 21 Monica B. Taing, Pharm.D. Board Member and Membership Director Doctors for Cannabis Regulation (DFCR), and National Director Research and Clinical Education Minorities for Medical Marijuana, Inc. (M4MM) 24 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page Jon-Henry Barr, Esq.
    [Show full text]
  • Manifiesto Internacional OMS Cannabis Traducido 1:12
    Naciones Unidas E/CN.7/2020/NGO/7 Distr.: General Consejo Ecónomico y Social 25 November 2020 English only Comisión en drogas narcóticas Reanudada la sexagésimo tercera sesión Vienna, 2–4 diciembre 2020 Item 5 de la agenda provisional* Implementación de tratados de control de drogas internacionales Declaración presentada por la coalición europea por la justicia y políticas de drogas eficaces, una organización no gubernamental reconocida como entidad consultiva por el Consejo Social y Económico El Secretario-General ha recibido el siguiente manifiesto, el cual está siendo circulado de acuardo a los párrafos 36 y 37 de la resolución 1996/31 del Consejo Económico y Social __________________ * E/CN.7/2020/1/Add.1. ** Issued without formal editing. V.20-06992 (E) 261120 291120 *2006992* E/CN.7/2020/NGO/7 Manifiesto Apoya el acceso de pacientes a su medicina, ¡vota que sí! La cannabis ha sido una medicina convencional desde el amanecer de la civilización. En 1902 y 1929 las medicinas cannábicas fueron discutidas en la Conferencia Internacional por la Unificación de las Fórmulas Farmacopeicas para Drogas Potentes, la cual proporcionó pautas para armonizar las medicinas de cannabis y proveer a pacientes de drogas seguras y estandarizadas para sus tratamientos. Para este tiempo la cannabis ya era bastante aceptada en la práctica clínica y había sido reportada en las Farmacopeas de Austria, Bélgica, Francia, Hungaria, Italia, Japón, Holanda, Suiza, Reino Unido, Estados Unidos de América, así como en México y España. En 1958, las Naciones Unidas reportaron que la cannabis estaba también en las Farmacopeas de Argentina, Brazil, China, Egypt, Finland, India, Portugal, Romania, la URSS, y Venezuela.(2) Muchas preparacionas cannábicas están en textos ancestrales que componen la Farmacopea Ayurvédica (Charaka Samhita, Sushruta Samhita, Shargandhara Samhita) y en las Farmacopeas Mediterráneas de Umdat at-tabîb, Jami' al-mufradat, Hadîqat al-azhâr or Tuhfat al-ahbâb.
    [Show full text]
  • Cannabis and Racial Justice
    Cannabis and Racial Justice What do we gain by arresting and citing more than 650,000 Americans on cannabis charges every year? The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world; almost half of all offenders are serving time for drug offenses. Many advocates interested in combating institutional racism see ending cannabis prohibition as a critical step in forging a new approach. Although cannabis use is roughly equal among blacks and whites, African Americans are over three times more likely to be arrested or cited for cannabis possession as compared to whites, according to an ACLU review of government data. Cannabis prohibition has racist origins. Cannabis prohibition began in the early 20th century and was based on racism, not science. The laws were originally used to target Latinos and black jazz musicians. This history continues to manifest itself in the current criminal justice system. Cannabis prohibition plays a major role in filling our prisons with people of color. While African Americans are far more likely than whites to be arrested for cannabis, use rates are about the same across races. The federal National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that, in 2014, 49% of whites reported having consumed cannabis at least once in their lifetime. This is compared to 42% of African Americans and 32% of Latinx. Two-thirds of all people in state prisons for drug offenses are people of color. According to FBI data, half of all drug arrests are for cannabis; of those, 92% are for possession. Each year, roughly 6,000 people are deported for cannabis possession.
    [Show full text]
  • Cannabis Policy, Implementation and Outcomes
    R Cannabis Policy, Implementation and Outcomes Mirjam van het Loo, Stijn Hoorens, Christian van ‘t Hof, James P. Kahan Prepared for the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports RAND Europe The research described in this report was prepared for the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports. ISBN: 0-8330-3533-9 The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. R® is a registered trademark. © Copyright 2003 RAND Corporation All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND. Published 2003 by the RAND Corporation 1700 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 201 North Craig Street, Suite 202, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-1516 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org/ To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: [email protected] Preface This report examines what is known about the effects of policies regarding the possession and use of cannabis. Such policies continue to be subject to debate in most if not all European countries. Different governments have made different policy decisions, varying from explicit toleration (but not full legalisation) to strict prohibition. Policymaking would be served by insight in the relationship between different cannabis policies and their outcomes, such as prevalence of cannabis use and social consequences for cannabis users and for society as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Effective Public Management
    Effective Public Management June 2016 Bootleggers, Baptists, bureaucrats, and bongs: How special interests will shape marijuana legalization By Philip Wallach and Jonathan Rauch INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ast November, the campaign for a state constitutional amendment in Ohio provided a glimpse of one possible future of marijuana legalization. Four other states and the District of Columbia Lhad already passed legalization initiatives, but Ohio’s was different. Its terms would have restricted marijuana production to ten sites—all of which were in the hands of the initiative’s financial backers, who had put up more than $20 million to pass the initiative. Voters and even many legalization advocates, offended by the nakedly self-serving terms of the proposal, rejected it, but the effort amounted to a wake-up call. Where there are markets, regula- tions, and money, special interests and self-serving behavior will not be far away. However desirable Philip Wallach is a senior fellow in technocratic regulation might (or might not) seem in principle, interest-group politics and bureaucratic Governance Studies at priorities will shape the way marijuana is legalized and regulated—probably increasingly over time. the Brookings Institution. In and of itself, that fact is neither good nor bad; it is inevitable. But it calls for some careful thinking about how interest-group politics and the search for economic rents (as economists call protections favoring certain market participants over others) may inflect or infect one of the most important and challenging policy reforms of the modern era. Why did legalization of marijuana break through in the face of what had long been overwhelming interest-group resistance? In a post-disruption world, how might the key social and bureaucratic Jonathan Rauch is actors reorganize and reassert themselves? As legalization ushers in a “new normal” of marijuana- a senior fellow in related regulation and lobbying, what kinds of pitfalls and opportunities lie ahead? In this paper, we Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution.
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Marijuana the War on Drugs and the Drug Policy Reform Movement
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ FROM THE FRONTLINES TO THE BOTTOM LINE: MEDICAL MARIJUANA THE WAR ON DRUGS AND THE DRUG POLICY REFORM MOVEMENT A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction Of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in SOCIOLOGY by Thomas R. Heddleston June 2012 The Dissertation of Thomas R. Heddleston is approved: ____________________________________ Professor Craig Reinarman, Chair ____________________________________ Professor Andrew Szasz ____________________________________ Professor Barbara Epstein ___________________________________ Tyrus Miller Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies Copyright © by Thomas R. Heddleston 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Chapter I: The History, Discourse, and Practice of Punitive Drug Prohibition 38 Chapter II: Three Branches Of Reform, The Drug Policy Reform Movement From 1964 To 2012 91 Chapter III: Sites of Social Movement Activity 149 Chapter IV: The Birth of Medical Marijuana In California 208 Chapter V: A Tale of 3 Cities Medical Marijuana 1997-2011 245 Chapter VI: From Movement to Industry 303 Conclusion 330 List of Supplementary Materials 339 References 340 iii LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 2.1: Major Organizations in the Drug Policy Reform Movement by Funding Source and Organizational Form 144 Table 3.1: Characteristics of Hemp Rallies Attended 158 Table 3.2: Drug Policy Organizations and the Internet 197 Figure 4.1: Proposition 215 Vote November 1996 241 Table 5.1: Political Opportunity Structures and Activist Tools 251 Table 5.2: Key Aspects of Political Opportunity Structures at 3 Levels of Government 263 Figure 5.1: Medical Cannabis Dispensaries by Region and State 283 iv ABSTRACT Thomas R. Heddleston From The Frontlines to the Bottom Line: Medical Marijuana the War On Drugs and the Drug Policy Reform Movement The medical marijuana movement began in the San Francisco Bay Area in the early 1990s in a climate of official repression.
    [Show full text]
  • An End to Marijuana Prohibition with Footnotes, National Review Article
    AN END TO Marijuana Prohibition The drive to legalize picks up E T H A N A. NA D E L M A N N EVER before have so many Americans supported 600,000, or 87 percent, of marijuana arrests are for nothing N 14 more than possession of small amounts. Millions of decriminalizing and even legalizing marijuana. Seventy-two Americans have never been arrested or convicted of any percent say that for simple marijuana possession, people criminal offense except this.15 Enforcing marijuana laws 16 should not be incarcerated but fined: the generally accepted costs an estimated $10-15 billion in direct costs alone. 1 definition of “decriminalization.” Even more Americans Punishments range widely across the country, from support making marijuana legal for medical purposes. modest fines to a few days in jail to many years in prison. Support for broader legalization ranges between 25 and 42 Prosecutors often contend that no one goes to prison for 2 percent, depending on how one asks the question. Two of simple possession—but tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands every five Americans—according to a 2003 Zogby poll— of people on probation and parole are locked up each year say “the government should treat marijuana more or less the because their urine tested positive for marijuana or because same way it treats alcohol: It should regulate it, control it, they were picked up in possession of a joint. Alabama 3 tax it, and only make it illegal for children.” currently locks up people convicted three times of marijuana Close to 100 million Americans—including more than possession for 15 years to life.17 There are probably—no firm half of those between the ages of 18 and 50—have tried estimates exist—100,000 Americans behind bars tonight for 4 marijuana at least once.
    [Show full text]
  • Legally Regulated Cannabis Markets in the US: Implications and Possibilities
    ISSN 2054-2046 Legally regulated cannabis markets in the US: Implications and possibilities Emily Crick, Heather J. Haase and Dave Bewley-Taylor Policy Report 1 | November 2013 Legally regulated cannabis markets in the US: Implications and possibilities Emily Crick , Heather J. Haase and Dave Bewley-TaylorΔ ∗ ∞ Policy Report 1 | November 2013 Key Points • In November 2012, voters in Washington and Colorado passed ballot initiatives that establish legally regulated markets for the production, sale, use and taxation of cannabis - the first time anywhere in the world that recreational use of the drug will be legally regulated. • The construction of legally regulated cannabis markets in these US states must be viewed as part of a long running process of ‘softening’ the official zero-tolerance approach. • Support for legalising cannabis has been growing in the US for some time and it is highest in states that have medical marijuana laws, but not decriminalisation. This suggests that voters recognize the benefits of regulation over the relaxation of laws. • The regulatory regimes being pursued in Washington and Colorado differ in a number of respects. It will be important to see how these differences affect the operation of their respective markets. • The votes put these US states in contravention of US federal law and, beyond US borders, they generate considerable tension between the federal government and the international drug control system. • These developments also impact on the ongoing policy shifts within Latin America – including Uruguay - and the emerging tensions around cannabis within the UN system. • It is vital that the operation of the legally regulated markets in Washington and Colorado is closely monitored and that, where necessary, structures are adjusted in response to any emerging issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Decriminalization in Virginia: Marijuana in the 2020 General Assembly Session
    Richmond Public Interest Law Review Volume 24 Issue 1 General Assembly in Review 2020 Article 5 3-31-2021 Decriminalization in Virginia: Marijuana in the 2020 General Assembly Session Jenn Michelle Pedini Cassidy Crockett-Verba Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/pilr Part of the Public Law and Legal Theory Commons Recommended Citation Jenn Michelle Pedini & Cassidy Crockett-Verba, Decriminalization in Virginia: Marijuana in the 2020 General Assembly Session, 24 RICH. PUB. INT. L. REV. 65 (2021). Available at: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/pilr/vol24/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Richmond Public Interest Law Review by an authorized editor of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Pedini and Crockett-Verba: Decriminalization in Virginia: Marijuana in the 2020 General Asse Do Not Delete 3/31/2021 10:41 AM DECRIMINALIZATION IN VIRGINIA: MARIJUANA IN THE 2020 GENERAL ASSEMBLY SESSION Jenn Michelle Pedini & Cassidy Crockett-Verba* *Jenn Michelle Pedini is the development director of NORML and serves as the ex- ecutive director of the state affiliate chapter, Virginia NORML. Jenn Michelle’s work in Virginia has resulted in the implementation of a legal and regulated medical cannabis program, the decriminalization of personal possession of marijuana, and the establishment of the Virginia Legislative Cannabis Caucus. Appointed to the Gover- nor’s Marijuana Legalization Work Group and co-chair of the Legal and Regulatory Subcommittee, their current focus is on the Commonwealth’s effort to equitably le- galize and regulate the responsible use of cannabis by adults.
    [Show full text]
  • STATE of MAINE Department of Administrative and Financial Services & Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry
    STATE OF MAINE Department of Administrative and Financial Services & Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry RESPONSE COVER PAGE RFI# 201707126 Rule-Making for Adult-Use Marijuana Policy Implementation Lead Point of Contact for Response - David Boyer, Maine Political Director Name/Title: Respondent’s Organization Name: Marijuana Policy Project Tel: (207) 274-4633 E-mail: [email protected] Website (if applicable): www.mpp.org Street Address: 23 Pembroke St. City/State/Zip: Portland, ME 04103 Section 1. Organization David Boyer has been the Maine Political Director for the Marijuana Policy Project since 2013. He has worked with MPP to build support for taxing and regulating marijuana in Maine. He spearheaded the local marijuana initiatives in Portland, South Portland, Lewiston, and York. David managed the statewide petition drive to get legalization on the ballot. He was the campaign manager for Question 1, which legalized marijuana for adult use in November of 2016. The Marijuana Policy Project was founded in 1995, dedicated to ending marijuana prohibition in the United States. Since then, MPP has been responsible for many of the medical marijuana and adult use marijuana victories in the country, including Colorado, Alaska, Maine, Nevada, and Massachusetts. The Marijuana Policy Project has been working in the marijuana policy arena for over twenty years and has invaluable knowledge and experience on how to best regulate marijuana. MPP can share lessons learned from other legal states and act as a resource for regulators in Maine. Section 2. Response to Information Sought 1. What public health and public safety challenges should the State anticipate (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Report 4 of the Council on Science and Public Health
    REPORT 4 OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (November 2020) (Resolutions 408-A-19, 411-A-19 and Alternate Resolution 913-I-19) Public Health Impacts of Cannabis Legalization (Reference Committee E) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Objective. To review developments in cannabinoid pharmacology, update relevant sections of Council Report 5-I-17, “Clinical Implications and Policy Considerations of Cannabis Use,” and evaluate the public health impacts in states that have legalized cannabis for adult use to determine whether modifications to AMA are warranted. Methods. English language reports were selected from searches of the PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases from August 2017 to August 2020 using the (text or MeSh) search terms “marijuana or cannabis or cannabinoid or cannabidiol” in combination with “legalization or laws,” and “health,” “mental or public health,” “addiction or cannabis use disorder,” “health effects,” “use,” “benefits or harms,” “youth or adolescents,” “edibles,” “driving,” “taxes,” “social equity or justice” and “treatment.” Additional articles were identified through related article searches and by manual review of the reference lists of retrieved articles. Websites managed by federal and state agencies, and applicable regulatory and advocacy organizations also were consulted for relevant information. Results. Thirty-three states have legalized medicinal use of cannabis. Eleven of these states have legalized cannabis for adult use. All 17 states that have not legalized medical use of cannabis allow the use of cannabidiol (CBD) in some way, as does the federal government for CBD products derived from hemp containing ≤0.3% Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids described in Council Report 5-I-17 remain valid; additionally, attention has been drawn to increased cardiovascular risks with cannabis use.
    [Show full text]