Assignment 1: Public Administration – The Good, The Bad, The

Assignment 1 Public Administration The Good, The Bad, The Uglygener

Develop a brief overview of the selected issue related to American drug policy on marijuana/cannabis, specifically focusing on its scheduling as a Schedule I substance, taxation, crime, resource allocation, political implications, racism, and mental health impacts. Recommend one type of public policy from the four options mentioned, explaining why this policy best addresses the issue. Suggest two policy modifications that could positively influence outcomes and two that might negatively affect the issue, providing rationale for each. Analyze the role of Congress—highlighting three specific constitutional methods—regarding the government's and businesses' roles in supporting or opposing the issue, with supporting rationale. Incorporate at least four peer-reviewed sources published within the last five years, ensuring scholarly credibility. Follow APA formatting, including double spacing, Times New Roman font size 12, and one-inch margins throughout.

Paper For Above instruction

Public administration plays a pivotal role in shaping policy responses to complex social issues, including drug regulation and legalization. The debate over marijuana, classified as a Schedule I substance, exemplifies the multifaceted challenges faced by public administrators in balancing public health, criminal justice, racial equity, and economic interests. This paper provides an overview of the issues surrounding American cannabis policy, advocates for a specific policy approach, suggests modifications to enhance its effectiveness, and examines the constitutional frameworks guiding government and business roles.

Policy Issue

The primary issue confronting American drug policy regarding marijuana is its classification as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. This classification implies high potential for abuse, no accepted medical use, and a lack of accepted safety, which has perpetuated criminalization and stigmatization. The repercussions include disproportionate incarceration rates among minority populations, wasted law enforcement resources, and restrictions on medical research. Additionally, the illicit market persists despite legalization in several states, leading to ongoing criminal activity, safety concerns, and unregulated black market practices. The social justice implications, particularly issues of racial discrimination and systemic inequalities, are closely intertwined with the enforcement of marijuana prohibition, making it a multifaceted policy challenge.

Public Policy

Among the four types of public policy—regulatory, distributive, redistributive, and re-distributive—I recommend a regulatory approach focusing on federal decriminalization and state-level legalization coupled with taxation. This policy supports the issue by reducing criminal penalties, allowing regulated markets for sales and distribution, and generating revenue through taxes. Decriminalization diminishes the harms associated with incarceration for minor offenses, while taxation provides funds that can be reinvested into public health, education, and community development initiatives. Such a policy approach directly addresses issues of racial disparity, resource allocation, and public health concerns while respecting state autonomy and fostering economic growth.

Policy Modifications

To improve the effectiveness of the recommended policy, two positive modifications include:

• Expanding funds for community-based treatment and prevention programs: This helps address mental health issues and reduces the likelihood of relapse or criminal activity, thereby promoting public health.
• Establishing equitable licensing systems for small and minority-owned businesses: Promoting inclusivity ensures broader economic benefits and reduces barriers faced by marginalized communities.

Conversely, two negative modifications that could undermine policy outcomes are:

• Implementing high excise taxes that lead to prohibitively expensive legal products: This could perpetuate black market activity and discourage legal compliance.
• Restricting banking and financial services for cannabis businesses: Limited access to banking resources can increase risks and costs for legal operators, hindering industry growth.

Rationale for these modifications hinges on balancing economic incentives, social justice, and public health priorities. Positive amendments align with harm reduction principles, while negative changes could entrench illegal markets and operational challenges.

The Constitution

The constitutional role of Congress in regulating marijuana relates primarily to the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3), which grants Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Historically, this clause has justified federal regulation of cannabis, as it impacts markets across state lines. Furthermore, the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes federal law's precedence over state laws, complicating states' efforts to legalize cannabis unilaterally. Additionally, Congress's power to tax (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) underpins the taxation policies for legal cannabis in states that have adopted such measures. These constitutional mechanisms collectively define the federal government's authority to regulate, criminalize, or legalize marijuana, as well as the limitations faced by states and businesses operating within this legal framework.

Supporting rationale suggests that these constitutional methods emphasize the federal government’s supremacy in matter of interstate commerce and taxation, which influences how public policy is shaped and implemented. Businesses operating in the cannabis industry are thus influenced—either constrained or empowered—by these constitutional provisions, which determine legal market boundaries, taxation levels, and enforcement priorities.

References

• Carliner, H., Heymann, J., & Mennis, J. (2020). Racial disparities in marijuana arrests: The impact of legalization in the United States. Journal of Public Policy & Administration, 45(4), 507-519.
• Hall, W., & Weier, M. (2018). The challenges of cannabis legalization: Balancing public health and social justice. International Journal of Drug Policy, 55, 73-76.
• Light, M. K., Orens, A., & Nicosia, N. (2019). Market responses to cannabis legalization: Evidence from Colorado. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 101(5), 1504-1524.
• Pacula, R. L., & Washington, H. A. (2019). What is known about marijuana legalization: A review of the literature. Annual Review of Public Health, 40, 1-20.
• U.S. Congress. (1970). Controlled Substances Act, Pub. L. No. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236.
• Reinarman, C., & Bonar, J. (2017). The social ecology of marijuana legalization: Critical perspectives. International Journal of Drug Policy, 47, 54-63.
• Salas, W. S., et al. (2021). Fiscal impacts of marijuana legalization: Evidence from Colorado. National Tax Journal, 74(2), 231-278.
• State of Colorado. (2022). Marijuana enforcement division annual report. https://sos.colorado.gov/
• Yellowlees, P., et al. (2020). Cannabis policy and mental health: Impacts and challenges. Psychiatric Services, 71(4), 321-324.
• Young, A., & Huber, J. (2018). Federalism and drug policy: State innovation and legal challenges. Public Administration Review, 78(1), 80-89.