Historical Perspective 2 Ashley A. Mi

Historical Perspective 2 Historical perspective Ashley A. Mitchel Rick Humphress Public Policy Analysis July 20, 2014

Over the past decade, the legal use of medicinal marijuana has been a subject of extensive debate and research. Numerous studies demonstrate potential medical benefits, particularly for cancer patients and individuals suffering from chronic pain or other ailments, which have responded positively to marijuana treatments. Despite this, marijuana remains a controversial substance due to its recreational use and perceived risks. Twenty-three states in the United States have enacted laws legalizing medical marijuana, reflecting a significant shift in public policy and societal attitudes. These laws, initiated primarily to provide medical patients with legal defenses against criminal charges, have evolved to permit state-controlled production and distribution of marijuana for medical purposes.

Statistics reveal that since 1996, 22 states and Washington, D.C., have legalized smoked marijuana for various medical conditions (The White House, 2012). However, federal law continues to prohibit marijuana use, creating a complex legal landscape where state and federal laws often conflict. State laws differ considerably regarding criteria for medical use, registration requirements, and enforcement protocols. This variability fuels ongoing debates about safety, efficacy, and legality at both state and local levels. Notably, local governments sometimes enact zoning and enforcement ordinances to restrict dispensaries, complicating access and further shaping the legal environment.

This paper focuses on two states—Arizona and South Carolina—to analyze differences in marijuana legislation and their implications. Arizona, which passed a law permitting medical marijuana in 2010 with approximately 50% voter support, has implemented a regulated program requiring patients to register and renew their cards annually. The state allows patients to possess up to one ounce of usable marijuana and cultivate up to six plants (three mature, three immature). Conversely, South Carolina has yet to fully legalize medical marijuana, although existing laws outline procedures for legal possession by qualified individuals, primarily for research and governmental distribution (Davis et al., 2014). Despite the lack of comprehensive legalization, South Carolina’s existing statutes permit the state to obtain and distribute marijuana through appropriate channels, aligning with federal law priorities.

Scientific and anecdotal evidence suggest marijuana's therapeutic benefits in alleviating symptoms associated with cancer and managing pain. There is broad support among stakeholders to regulate marijuana as a controlled substance similar to hydrocodone, but strictly for medicinal purposes. Nonetheless, opposition persists, citing concerns about non-medical use, dependency, and societal impacts. Critics argue that legalization could lead to increased recreational consumption and associated health risks, although proponents counter that regulated access could mitigate misuse and improve patient outcomes.

Legalization in Arizona has resulted in increased revenue through taxation and decreased incarceration rates for marijuana-related offenses. Data indicate that roughly half of the population supports legalization, with a significant portion advocating for expanded medical access. Similar economic and social benefits are projected for South Carolina if legalization occurs, including additional tax revenue and reduced criminal justice costs. However, political resistance remains strong, often rooted in perceptions of marijuana as a social vice and concerns over public safety.

The economic and political calculus of marijuana legalization extends beyond public health considerations to include substantial investments by federal and state governments. Historically, the government has committed significant resources to enforce marijuana prohibition, framing it within the War on Drugs. This prolonged "war" resembles military escalation strategies, where incremental steps lead to entrenched policies resistant to change (Kahin & Lewis, 1967). Despite the failure of these policies to curtail usage effectively, political and economic interests continue to support enforcement efforts, making policy reversal challenging.

The ideological stance against legalization is further reinforced by cultural perceptions. The majority of middle and upper-class Americans view marijuana as a social vice, contributing to resistance among key demographics who do not perceive personal or societal benefits from reform efforts. Conversely, the demographic most impacted by current policies—young adults aged 18-35, predominantly from lower socioeconomic backgrounds—advocate for legalization and recognize potential medical and economic benefits.

Public figures and advocacy groups have played pivotal roles in shaping the discourse. Notable supporters include celebrities such as Jack Black and Tommy Chong, who publicly advocate for legalization, leveraging their platforms to influence public opinion. Government agencies, including the Arizona Department of Health Services and the FDA, also play critical roles in regulating and overseeing medical marijuana programs. These actors collaborate to establish guidelines, ensure safety standards, and evaluate scientific research to inform policy decisions (Anderson & Hansen, 2013).

Despite growing support, the path toward comprehensive legalization remains fraught with political obstacles. The entrenched economic interests in maintaining prohibition—such as law enforcement funding and convictions—serve as powerful deterrents to reform (Garvey, 2012). Political leaders are often reluctant to challenge these interests without significant public pressure, which has historically been limited due to prevailing social stigmas and misinformation.

In conclusion, the evolving landscape of marijuana legislation reflects broader societal shifts in perceptions of drug use, health policy, and economic interests. While states like Arizona demonstrate the potential benefits of regulated medical marijuana, persistent political and cultural barriers continue to impede nationwide reform. The complex interplay of scientific evidence, economic motivation, political resistance, and societal attitudes underscores the importance of continued research, advocacy, and education to inform effective policies that balance public health, safety, and individual rights.

References

• Anderson, D. M., Hansen, B., & Rees, D. I. (2013). Medical marijuana laws, traffic fatalities, and alcohol consumption. Journal of Law and Economics, 56(2), 333-369.
• Davis, A. K., Osborn, L. A., Leith, J., Rosenberg, H., Ashrafioun, L., Hawley, A., & Baik, K. D. (2014). Development and evaluation of the Marijuana Reduction Strategies Self-Efficacy Scale. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 28(2), 575-583.
• Garvey, T. (2012, March). Medical Marijuana: The Supremacy Clause, Federalism, and the Interplay Between State and Federal Laws. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
• Kahin, G. M., & Lewis, J. W. (1967). The United States in Vietnam (Vol. 9243). Dial Press.
• MacCoun, R., Pacula, R. L., Chriqui, J., Harris, K., & Reuter, P. (2009). Do citizens know whether their state has decriminalized marijuana? Assessing the perceptual component of deterrence theory. Review of Law & Economics, 5(1), 161-172.
• Peralta, E. (2014, January 19). Obama says marijuana 'no more dangerous than alcohol'. The New Yorker.
• Strayer, D. (2013). Understanding Public Policy. Cengage Learning.
• The White House, United States Government. (2012). The Public Health Consequences of Marijuana Legalization. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov
• United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2014). Federal Regulations and State Marijuana Laws. HHS Publications.
• Yale Law School. (2014). The Conflict Between State and Federal Marijuana Laws. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 482.