Public Policy Paper (Essay Sample)

Student Name
Student ID
Public Policy Memo
May 25, 2014

POLICY MEMORANDUM
TO: The Chairman of the State of ________ Special Advising Committee on Drug Policies and Regulation
FROM: The State’s Special Advising Board on Drug Policies and Regulation
SUBJECT: The regulation of Marijuana as a Medical Drug under __________ State Laws
Introduction
The renewed heated debate at the national level about the legalization of marijuana for medical use has necessitated this state’s Special Advising Board on Drug Policies and Regulation to give its stance on the issue. This Board acknowledges the economic potential from revenues and health benefits for the public arising from the legalization of medical marijuana. Therefore, this Board recommends that marijuana be legalized as a medical drug and that it be regulated under this state’s statutes and laws.
Background
The widespread prescription of cannabis products by physicians in the United States as early as 1937, which only declined after the passage of Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, is evident of its medicinal usefulness. The passage of this 1937 Act was a success despite disagreeing recommendations from the American Medical Association (AMA) representative1. Moreover, the existing federal law that categorizes marijuana as a Schedule I drug (others include heroin, ecstasy, and LSD) defies the Drug Enforcement Administration own law judgment of 1988 that ruled it be struck from that list2. As of now, our state is among those who still adhere to the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 that prohibits any medicinal use of marijuana but public opinion overwhelmingly disapproves the federal law by 68 percent3. Already, 17 states in the country (with California, Colorado, and Connecticut laws being the significant ones) have legalized the drug for medical uses, and 20 more are reviewing their respective laws in order to legalize marijuana for medical therapy.
Vested Interests
The federal government opposes the legality of medical marijuana on several claims. First, government-funded research bodies claim that marijuana smoking impairs neurotic, perceptive, and the emotional wellbeing of users4. Second, medical marijuana would increase the availability of other cannabis products, lower its price, and therefore allow its widespread abuse. Third, the promising potential tax revenues from medical marijuana would be offset by higher social costs that relate to crime, healthcare, and lost workplace productivity. Although the government has often relied on the causal relationship of marijuana to high crime rates, empirical evidence continues to counter that claim. The federal government is a major determinant of the legality of medical marijuana because it can exploit its budgetary allocation role to force state governments to its goals. In fact, the U.S. Department of Justice issued an update to its federal law enforcement policy on the legalization of marijuana by states on August 29, 20135. The federal government maintains that marijuana is still illegal. Moreover, it can use the American Constitution to circumvent states’ laws, most of which are ambiguous, to crack down on dispensaries that sell medical cannabis by using the Internal Revenue Services (IRS) laws and clauses1. Although the federal government enjoys some support from a section of the public through religious groups, it is not sufficient to counter other parties.
On the other hand, the states’ governments (us included) intent to legalize marijuana in order to earn huge revenues in the form of taxes. This move is understandably due to the recent budget funding cuts from the federal government. Tax projections from the state of Colorado for the year 2014 shows a 60 percent jump from $67 million to $107 million in marijuana excise tax alone6. Although states’ governments have no major influence, their power to legalize marijuana comes from the voters in their respective states who will pressurize their legislative representatives to voice their concerns at the federal level. This forecast is because nationwide polls show that the public strongly propose the end of marijuana prohibition and support medical marijuana by a percentage of 60 to 807.
The medical practitioners and social welfare bodies support legal medical marijuana because of the alleged therapeutic effects it has on terminally ill patients and those patients living with AIDS. In fact, the American Medical Association has consistently opposed the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Their biggest concern is the high number of the incarceration of family members for obtaining marijuana for their terminally ill relatives after conventional medicines have proved ineffective8. The major debate among this group is to what extent and what circumstances is marijuana prescriptive as therapeutic. Moreover, this group continues to offer conflicting recommendations on the appropriate form of consuming the medical marijuana. Whereas one side in this group agrees to the smoking of medical marijuana, the other side recommends that the administration of medical marijuana be in pill, oil, and vapor form8. Numerically, this group appears negligible but it holds significant power in swaying both sides of the debate because of their expert knowledge. Their power lies in influencing the justice department by the facts they present in court and the information they give to the public through the media.
Lastly, the public is the major determinant of the legalization of marijuana for medical use. Although there seems to be an almost 50/50 division in their opinions about the subject, majority support the legalization of medical marijuana. In fact, this 50/50 division is not due others opposing it. Rather, the other 50 percent are worried about the chances of healthy citizens abusing the drug for leisure. Inherent in this huge public support are those who genuinely support it for medical reasons and those who want it for relaxation purposes. Nevertheless, this group is the most influential because they can sway the decisions of all civic leaders from representatives, mayors, senators to governors and judges. Their power arises because the media can give them a common rallying call that even legislative and executive members of parties like the Democrats, republicans, and Libertarians would not be able to subdue. Moreover, they are more likely to succeed in legalizing marijuana through the courts, whose constitutional mandate is to protect the rights of the American people. In fact, pro-medical marijuana lobbyists are having an easy time in drumming up funding from the public than their opponents who are in the anti-marijuana campaigns.
Recommendations
As a Board, we recommend several options in confronting this issue:
First, we recommend that this state carry out a referendum to determine if our constituent approve or disapprove the legalization of medical marijuana. Although this decision will be indicative of our respect for both the federal government and our constituents, the public is inclined to favor legalization. Therefore, it would be a waste of resources, time, and energy.
Second, we recommend that this state continue complying with the federal Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 and Controlled Substances Act of 1970 until the federal government accepts to reform the law. Although this state would avoid the numerous federal raids on marijuana selling dispensaries evident in neighboring states, the government is unlikely to change its stance any time soon. Moreover, legal medical marijuana presents this state a chance to supplement the little federal government funding we get amidst rising expenditure. So, complying with federal rules yet other states are substantially funding themselves from medical marijuana would provoke public dissatisfaction.
Third, we recommend lobbying our state legislative representatives to legalize marijuana for medical purposes but under regulations and statutes of our state. Despite the fact that we risk decreased federal government funding and increased federally sanctioned raids on our state dispensaries, this state will benefit. First, there will be increased revenue collection. Secondly, there will be reduced healthcare expenditure on conventional medicine to relieve chronic health conditions of our constituents. These funds will find an alternative use in our state economy.
The third option of legalizing it through legislative process presents the best alternative. At present, the State Department has deferred its mandate to challenge states that legalize marijuana as long as the states enact thorough regulations concerning medical marijuana. Therefore, we can seize this opportunity to enact the legalization of medical marijuana. The following are the reasons why we advocate the policy of marijuana legalization.
First, the regulations and statues set in place in this state will address shortcomings evident in other states. For example, this state shall explicitly set the allowable limit and circumstances under which one is prescribed medical marijuana so that no window for abuse exists. Moreover, the state will enact specific laws that protect both the producers and consumers. Doing so protects producers from federal government raids and encourages many producers to register with our department. Therefore, regulation of marijuana production becomes feasible.
Secondly, the state will set out clear rules that producers and sellers have to follow respectively to avoid loopholes that the federal government exploits to raid dispensaries. For example, our medical marijuana policy will be unlike the California policy, which is ambiguous in defining which patient qualifies for medical marijuana1. Consequently, the federal government affords opportunities to conduct raids on California’s dispensaries. Similarly, California’s po...