Policy Alternatives
In order to create a viable policy alternative for marijuana, several areas must be taken into consideration. First, the policy must not be detrimental to the health of Virginians. As stated previously, many proponents of full legalization have claimed it is a harmless practice, however other studies have found the opposite to be true (Hall & Lynskey, 2016; Compton, 2016, Thomas, et. al., 2017; American Academy of Pediatrics, 2017). The key requirement of the policy should be to promote the public good, and allowing a drug with potentially harmful effects should give lawmakers pause. Maintaining and encouraging public health and wellbeing is certainly a key policy goal for any change in marijuana policy.
The second goal is that the policy should not add to the current budget deficit. This consideration takes into account two factors. First, as with any industry, marijuana has the potential to bring an influx of revenue to the state through taxation. This is one of the driving arguments for proponents of legalization, as states such as Washington have taken in hundreds of millions of dollars in marijuana revenue (Davidson, 2019). On the other side, decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana will reduce spending for law enforcement, since offenders will not be penalized with jail time, court cases, etc. According to the Virginia Crime Report, published by the Virginia State Police (2018), over 60% of all drug arrests in 2017 were related to marijuana (p. 65). By loosening restrictions, this will allow for a decrease in spending, while allowing law enforcement to devote their time and resources to other matters (Miron, 2018).
A third policy goal is to ensure that the policy affects all Virginians uniformly. Marijuana laws currently affect African Americans and other minorities in greater proportions than whites, despite little difference in usage rates (Meier, 1994, p. 250; Virginia State Crime Commission, 2017). In one study, it was found that in 2010, African Americans accounted for almost 60% of all marijuana arrests, despite being only 15% of the population. Sentencing and fines were also higher for African Americans (Hudak, 2016, p. 151). New policies must mitigate any disparities in prosecution.
The fourth goal is that there be no more than a 5% increase in use compared to the 10 year average. It is vital that drugs in any form are discouraged, and any policy surrounding marijuana should be enacted with the ultimate goal of reducing drug use and dependency (or at the very least not exacerbating use). Lastly and similarly, the fifth goal is that the policy maintains public morality. Some laws, such as those against public intoxication, have little to no economic impact, but exist solely to enhance public decency and the common good. Beyond whether marijuana is harmful or not, the question exists as to whether its use has any benefit on individuals and families, and any policy alternative should include a moral component.
When it comes to the policy alternatives, there are three that stand out as the most balanced, according to the goals outlined above. One policy alternative is to decriminalize marijuana for those found in possession. Decriminalization in this sense keeps marijuana illegal in any amount, but reduces penalties for offenders, including reducing fines and removing jail sentences. It stops short of actually legalizing marijuana possession in any amount, however (Virginia State Crime Commission, 2017). Instead of offering a range of fines, a standard fine of $150 would be given for first-time offenders, followed by $500 for a second offense and $750 for a third. On the fourth infraction, a $1,000 fine, jail time, or mandatory drug counseling would be options. In addition to reducing penalties, this would also reduce the class of conviction, making the first three offenses civil offenses rather than criminal. If an individual was caught in possession a fourth time, it would be classified as a criminal offense. Since many of those caught with marijuana are first time offenders, this would keep many of them from gaining a criminal record (Virginia State Crime Commission, 2017).
Decriminalization would balance several of the policy goals. First, it would maintain Virginia’s stance that marijuana is an illicit drug that should not be used, preserving the moral component. Eliminating jail time would also diminish the strain on jail facilities and reducing marijuana possession to a civil offense would prevent the matter from proceeding to court. Each of these would reduce the accompanying expenses that necessarily accrue as cases proceed through the court system, saving the government (and taxpayer) money. Lastly, setting standard fine amounts will prevent minority communities from receiving harsher penalties, taking into consideration the justice factor.
Although decriminalizing marijuana would not necessarily incentivize marijuana use du jour, it may lead to de facto increases due to the subsequent lightening of penalties. In Virginia, the political consequences for legalization attempts are inconsequential, as legalization attempts have not received much backlash. Decriminalization in the sense outlined above would be the easiest to pass the legislature and would most likely garner bipartisan support. No other major policy constraints exist, except for the time it takes to train law enforcement. Doubtless, the drive to decriminalize is growing with each legislative session, and bills are being introduced in an increasing manner.
Another policy alternative includes full legalization of recreational marijuana. This allows for the possession of any amount of marijuana for those 21 years of age and older. In addition to allowing individuals to possess marijuana, the state would also offer licenses to businesses for production and distribution. A regulatory regime would be established with norms for production, including what ingredients may or may not be used. In addition, acceptable use guidelines would be developed for those who intend to use the drug.
Full legalization would also meet most, though not all, of the policy goals. Since marijuana would be legal, minority populations would not be prosecuted. By bringing marijuana out of the black market, increased revenue come through taxation, potentially bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars per year. This would allow for those funds to be routed to other endeavors, such as education and infrastructure. The creation of a new industry would also provide jobs for Virginians. In order for legalization of marijuana, its health effects would need to be proven minimal; some proponents state that marijuana is indeed less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, as there have been no reported deaths tied directly to overdose (Page, 2005, p. 24-25). Since product testing would be required, users would be aware of how it was manufactured and what ingredients are used. The state would also save money on law enforcement, since all marijuana prosecution would cease (Drug Policy Alliance, 2019). Nationally, teen rates of marijuana use over the past 10 years have remained fairly static, so legalization has not necessarily led to increased use among teens (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2018a).
The unintended consequences of full legalization have the potential to be more severe, however. While research is still being conducted as to marijuana’s health effects, should it become more and more apparent that marijuana is not as medically safe as presumed, many citizens’ health could be impacted. Since marijuana ingestion can lead to poor judgment and decreased motor skills, the potential exists for a greater number of accidents from marijuana intoxication. Individuals may be willing to use it more frequently, which can lead to more cases of dependency. Each of these unintended consequences presents dire problems for legalization. Politically, legalization would present the greatest challenge. As with decriminalization bills, legalization bills have also been tabled in Virginia’s legislative sessions. Although attitudes are shifting, the political will does not currently exist for full legalization, particularly among Republicans, who control both legislative chambers.
A third policy alternative is a variation of full legalization. It allows for the legalization of marijuana and possession, similar to the preceding policy. The primary difference is that instead of allowing any business to produce and sell marijuana, Virginia would only offer a limited number of licenses for its manufacture. In addition, commercialization of marijuana would be barred, so no television, radio, or other media ads would be allowed (Kelly, 2017).
As with full legalization, this would also meet some of the same goals, particularly economic ones, although in a more limited way. Virginia would see new revenue streams from marijuana sales, but due to a smaller amount of dispensaries in operation, market forces would also keep prices higher; this would keep demand more restricted. Additionally, with fewer dispensaries, the state could keep a more focused eye on manufacturers to ensure they are following established standards. One of the downsides of this policy is that since Virginia would select a smaller number of dispensaries to produce marijuana, it would in a sense create a state-sponsored oligopoly for a few preferred companies and most likely lead to lawsuits. In addition, due to the state’s heavy involvement and selection of manufacturers, it would border on an endorsement for marijuana use—this was a common argument in Ohio’s legalization vote in 2015 (Graham, 2015). The political costs would be equally as high as full legalization, and enacting the policy would take a great deal of time as the state determines its standards for production and which companies which companies will be awarded licenses. Each of these policies aligns in various ways with current initiatives in other states, and each would be an option for solving burgeoning marijuana reform push.
Conclusions and Recommendation
Although each of the policies above are viable solutions, several factors need to be considered in order to ascertain the best policy. The first criteria involves implementation efficiency (Bardach & Patashnik, 2016, p. 40). The law should be easily implementable and require minimal need for new bureaucracies, departments, or regulations. Similarly, the second criteria relates to the policy’s efficiency (Bardach & Patashnik, 2016, p. 29). Its cost should not exceed any revenue gained or money saved, which would further allow the state to maintain fiscal solvency. The third criteria revolves around maintaining public health, as the alternative must not advocate or condone actions that are physically or mentally harmful. The fourth criteria for the policy alternative relates to how public morality will be affected. The law should prohibit “drug use in the name of its responsibility to preserve ‘common values’ that are vital to the well-being of society (Montigny, 2011, p. 27). Connected to this, usage and dependency rates should not increase. These criteria were selected because they balance economic factors, health factors, and ethical/moral considerations, which are also the primary areas of concern when dealing with a change in policy.
Based on these criteria, the policy of decriminalization is the best option for several reasons. First, decriminalization meets the standard of maintaining public morality. Since marijuana will remain illegal in any amount, the state is not allowing a harmful substance to be used. This keeps the state from being put in the precarious position of juxtaposing between discouraging drug use and legalizing it at the same time. When it comes to teen access, this is a positive step, as the effects of marijuana have an outsized impact on younger users. The American Academy of Pediatrics (2017) states that 10% of adolescent users eventually become addicted (p. 33); this is not an insignificant amount. Addictions that begin in teen years can continue into adulthood, potentially derailing their lives for years.
Second, decriminalization will ensure that public health is upheld, as the policy would not allow for an open exchange; any increase in use is therefore likely to be minimal. Decriminalization would also keep marijuana illegal while researchers have additional time to study its effects on users. While advocates claim marijuana is harmless, it would be unwise to overhaul policy until marijuana’s full effects are known. The wisdom behind this hearkens back to the debate over cigarettes (Larkin, 2018). Further, the report by the Virginia State Crime Commission (2017) cited a study that found THC content increased to an average of 12% in smoked marijuana products, while Larkin (2018) likewise stated the figure could be approaching 20%. These concerns are appropriate because marijuana has recently been shown to hinder brain development in adolescents, leading to both short- and long-term memorization problems (Walters, 2005, p. 18). In addition, another study found that chronic teen users lost an average of 6 IQ points over the course of their lives (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2018b). Marijuana is increasingly understood as more harmful than commonly believed.
Additionally, decriminalization would be the easiest policy to implement because no new departments or regulatory agencies would need to be created; it would only be amending existing law. It would also fulfill the efficiency requirement, as its costs would be relatively low. In fact, by eliminating jail terms and making marijuana a civil offense, the costs associated with prosecution would also be reduced. This would also cause the judicial system to operate more efficiently as well, since marijuana cases will no longer clog court dockets. Since marijuana possession would still require a fine, the state would still be taking in revenue from offenders. Taken together, each of these criteria best match with the policy of decriminalization. The policy will keep Virginians from becoming part of an uncertain social experiment, while also introducing a law that is both moral and equitable, working to balance the needs and safety of all its citizens.
In order for implementation to begin, a decriminalization bill would need to be introduced in the legislature and passed by both chambers. Then, the governor will need to sign it. Once the policy change is officially law, implementation will not be too difficult and can go into effect within a short amount of time. Police and sheriff departments, as well as courts, will need to be updated on the new amendment and training conducted to ensure it is properly enforced and prosecuted. One of the issues in implementation will be whether or not to prosecute those who are currently awaiting trial under the old policy or the new. Since possession of marijuana will be categorized as a civil offense, the consequences of charging them under the old code would be quite severe and hamper their chances at finding jobs in the future. Any pending cases would be best charged under the new code.
Once the law has gone into effect, the outcomes must be closely monitored to determine its efficacy. In succeeding budget years, the state can easily calculate how much revenue is gained through the payment of fines relating to marijuana charges, while also estimating a cost savings to law enforcement from the changes in enforcement procedures. These can be put in quantifiable terms so that the direct financial and economic effects of the law are ascertained.
In addition, the rate of civil marijuana offenses can be monitored to ensure that decriminalizing the law is not causing an increase in marijuana use. If law enforcement reports a significant uptick in the amount of marijuana they are confiscating, that could be a sign that the law’s unintended consequences may have outpaced the benefits of the law itself. Moreover, the state of Virginia can conduct surveys of its citizens regarding marijuana use and attitudes. As with civil offenses, if the surveys report proportionally higher increases in marijuana use, the law may need modified, as it may be incentivizing the drug.
As the debate over marijuana continues, lawmakers and stakeholders can continue playing an active part in the policymaking process. One recommendation is for state and local agencies to continue monitoring research findings regarding marijuana’s health effects. If evidence suggests marijuana has more negative health effects than previously thought, harsher penalties for possession may be warranted. Second, policymakers can observe the decriminalization/legalization results in other states. Since several states have already legalized marijuana, data will be available in increasing measures for other states who are considering similar policies, including Virginia. Lastly, Virginia should consider revamping anti-drug campaigns in the state. As opinions for marijuana skew more and more toward legalization, the effects of drugs and addiction should be made readily available. This can include ads on television, radio, and billboards, seminars hosted by subject matter experts and anti-drug coalitions, and school sessions geared toward younger children. Whichever policy is decided upon, mitigating drug dependency should be at the forefront of that decision.
When it comes to drug policies, Christians must be salt and light to society. While others may feel that drugs such as marijuana are harmless, they oftentimes lead people in greater darkness and bondage. The Apostle Paul said, “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18, ESV). While in that context Paul as referring to alcohol, the principle remains the same: believers should not give themselves over to substances that hinder full control. In addition, nowhere in the Word of God is drunkenness spoken of or referred to in a positive manner, however it is often referred to as a vice. Drugs operate in a similar manner, including marijuana. God’s ways work for both individuals and society, and by implementing godly principles our state and nation will be positioned for God’s blessing. Although the three policy goals outlined above are some of the most common, only one should be endorsed by believers, and that is to reduce penalties for marijuana possession while still keeping the drug illegal. Drugs are a terrible problem and as believers we should show them there is hope and a better way—the only way, and His Name is Jesus Christ.
References
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2017). Medical risks of marijuana. Itasca: AAP. Retrieved
from EBSCOhost.
Bardach, E. & Patashnik, E. (2016). A practical guide for policy analysis. Thousand Oaks: CQ
Press.
Compton, M. (2016). Marijuana and mental health. Arlington: American Psychiatric
Publishing. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Davidson, D. (2019). Washington marijuana revenues, and health. Washington State Treasurer.
Retrieved from https://www.tre.wa.gov/portfolio-item/washington-state-marijuana-
revenues-and-health/
Drug Policy Alliance. (2018, February). Marijuana decriminalization and legalization. Retrieved
From http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/marijuanalegalizationanddecriminaliz
ation_factsheet_feb2018_0.pdf
Hall, W. & Lynksey, M. (2016, October 1). Evaluating the public health impacts of legalizing
recreational cannabis use in the United States. Addiction, 111(10), 1764-1773.
Hudak, J. (2016). Marijuana: A short history. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Kelly, John. (2017, 2017, July 11). Marijuana legalization and answers to our “drug problems.”
Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/addiction-
recovery-101/201707/marijuana-legalization-and-answers-our-drug-problems
Larkin, P. (2018, January 8). The proper way to reconsider federal marijuana policy. The
Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.heritage.org/the-
constitution/report/the-proper-way-reconsider-federal-marijuana-policy
Meier, K. (1994). The politics of sin. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe Inc.
Miron, J. (2018, July 23). The budgetary effects of ending drug prohibition. Cato Institute.
Retrieved from https://www.cato.org/publications/tax-budget-bulletin/budgetary-effects-
ending-drug-prohibition#full
Montigny, E. (2011). The real dope: Social, legal, and historical perspectives on the regulation of
drugs in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2018a, December 17). Monitoring the Future survey results
show alarming rise in teen vaping. National Institute of Health. Retrieved from
results-show-alarming-rise-in-teen-vaping
Thomas, A., Moser, E., Dickerson-Young, T. & Mazor, S. (2017). A review of pediatric
marijuana exposure in the setting of increased legalization. Clinical Pediatric Emergency
Medicine, 18(3), 159-162. doi:10.1016/j.cpem.2017.07.003
Walters, J. (2005). Marijuana is harmful. In T. Roleff (Ed.), Drug Abuse: Opposing Viewpoints
(pp. 18-22). Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press.
Virginia State Crime Commission. (2017, October 30). Decriminalization of marijuana.
Retrieved from http://vscc.virginia.gov/VSCC_FINAL_Decrim%20Marj%20Present.pdf
Virginia State Police. (2018). Crime in Virginia 2017. Retrieved from http://www.vsp.virginia.g
ov/VSP%20site/VSP/downloads/Crime_in_Virginia/Crime%20in%20Virginia_2017.pdf
