Community Planning Methods that Involve Legalization of Recreational Marijuana

In the shifting views about the health effects of marijuana, there is a general trend for states to relax the rules around this substance across the nation. Some states have already lifted the ban against marijuana for recreational purposes. The state of California set the pace in this discussion and shifting perceptions when it passed a proposal now popularly known as proposal 215 to allow possession of small amounts of the substance for medical uses (Murphy and Carnevale 2016). Other states have followed suit.

The most notable among these states are the District of Columbia and six other states. They represent about 6% of the population of the nation. They have all allowed possession of marijuana; not for medical use only, but for recreational purposes. There are several contributing factors to this phenomenon. One of the most outstanding reasons is that the much-touted war on drugs across the nation has failed. The impact of low enforcement, largely viewed as disproportionate, on low income communities and a wider justice reform focus are also influencing factors.

Moreover, the public view has shifted tremendously over the years. Figures show that currently 58% of the American population support legalization of Marijuana. The figure was only 20% a couple of decades back. California has seen supporters of the legalization agenda increase by 6%age points over the past five years (Baldassare, Bonner, and Lopes 2015). The changing trends are likely to influence more than 12 other states to seek public opinion regarding the legalization of the drug.

California is likely to present a proposal similar to the Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act on the ballot on November 16th. If the 12 states succeed in legalizing the use of Marijuana, it means that over 60% of the population will be living in areas where the substance is legally consumed. The challenge that the shift presents revolves around how to effectively legalize an industry that was illegal under the laws of the state and is still illegal under federal law.

Jurisdictions that have legalized the use of marijuana should embark on policies that will promote public health and ones that will monitor and control the production of marijuana. The message in this essay is to urge community leaders and planners to institute effective controls for the production and distribution of marijuana and its products and monitor taxation if they wish to realize the intended objectives. Background and Context of the Research California became the first state in the U.S. to legalize marijuana in 1996 through proposal 215.

The state now has large formal groups of growers, processors and sellers of the product. The District of Columbia and 23 other states followed suit. Recent legalization of the product in Washington and Colorado were widely seen as experiments whose results could be analyzed by others to decide on the appropriate courses of action regarding the product. In fact, they were even viewed as an agenda that was pushed by interested organizations; particularly the national movement for legalization of marijuana (Murphy and Carnevale 2016).

As has been observed if all states intending to legalize marijuana actually do it, over 60% of the population will live in marijuana prone areas. The intended actions can no longer be viewed as experiments. There is need to initiate regulatory mechanisms to handle the change. The federal government is in a dilemma on whether to thwart the efforts of the movement or respect the aspirations of the people in the affected states (Hollenhorst 2014).

California is already considering whether to place marijuana under regulatory handling by voting on the legalization question with regard to recreational use. California enacted three bills that affect the medical use of marijuana. These have come to be collectively known as MMRSA. The laws brought into operation a new set of regulation of marijuana for medical purposes that functions under the Department of Consumer Affairs. It laid out procedures for following up on the distribution of marijuana for medical use.

There was also involvement of other departments for testing and regulating the marijuana industry for a healthy environment. These changes in various states are not reflected at the federal level (Baldassare et al. 2015). Marijuana remains illegal under federal laws and is categorized as schedule 1 drug that has no medical benefits (National Drug Intelligence Center 2011). The Controlled Substances Act outlaws any business related to marijuana including possession and any other activities surrounding its production and distribution.

Despite the CSA prohibition staying in place, the Obama administration has taken steps to downscale prosecution of marijuana offenders at the federal level if they have complied with the state requirements. The federal government seems to be gradually listening to the intentions of the states that have intentions to legalize marijuana and, indeed those that have already instituted legal mechanisms to regulate the marijuana industry. It is possible that future administrations will change policy while ignoring the important question of federal enforcement unresolved.

Implications of Policy Change The legalization of marijuana is undoubtedly a major change in policy that will impact the rates of use and public health. There is little research to draw lessons from (Caulkins et al. 2012). Although there are studies that demonstrate the health and social effects of illegal drug use, there is no clear link between such effects and how a legal market would turn out. California is set to enter a world of uncertainty with the intended policy change on marijuana.

There is need for monitoring to report on both intended and unintended outcomes. This will ensure appropriate adjustments. The shift in the legal status of marijuana transcends just legality. It is a systematic transformation that exceeds the legal justice system. Careful planning and proactive monitoring will safeguard public interest. A feedback policy that compares expectations and outcomes is desirable (Simeone et al. 2005). Such feedback mechanisms should constitute evaluation processes that are scientific and detailed. Systems need to be evaluated too and a descriptive report generated.

So far, there is little information regarding recreational use of marijuana. The worrying facts remain that there are no process evaluation mechanisms instituted in any of the states where the change is apparent. Washington happens to be the only state that included process and outcome evaluations in its law. The state recently released a preliminary report that outlines plans for evaluation of outcomes (Darnell 2015). These efforts are indicative of good governance.

The marijuana experiment is set to meet the expectations of the public and will generate the important information for the benefit of both residents and outsiders (Wallach 2015). California should follow suit. The adoption of a governance framework being part of MMRSA was a great step forward. Such regulation is a good beginning. However, there is still need to collect data and make it available for analysis. There is need to decide whether to set up parallel legal statutes for medical and recreational use of marijuana.

It is noted though that separation would make medical marijuana use attractive and harbor cheaters who use it for recreational purposes. Colorado has similar regulations but has separated medical sales from recreational sales (Murphy and Carnevale 2016). The figures in Colorado show that over 40% of the taxes are generated from medical sales. The suggestion is an open secret; there are cheaters in there because medical marijuana costs less. In summary, for California, there is need to craft a unitary regulatory system for the sale of medical and recreational marijuana.

Authorities should evaluate if here is need to create exceptions for medical marijuana use. A unitary system is less complex and easier to enforce (Alexander and Wiggins 2014). There are few examples where California regulates products under separate laws based on usage. We strongly suggest, therefore, that a unitary system should be adopted for a transparent restrictive approach that can be modified when there is need to do so.

There Is Need for California to Set Limits on the Location and Scale of Finance and Taxes The four states that have legalized marijuana have imposed taxes for the purpose of raining revenue and deterring use. The taxes keep the prices of marijuana high but at a level that averts pursuit of illicit marijuana. The experience with legalized marijuana is too short to determine the inflection price points. Washington and Colorado have drawn huge amounts of revenue from the taxes nevertheless.

States must be clear on what to tax when taxing marijuana. The points at which the taxes will be imposed must also be decoded beforehand. Three areas are critical for the tax base; price, potency and weight. Each of these areas comes with both advantages and disadvantages. Weight-based tax base is easy to understand and administer. On the flip side, it provides sellers with a window to separate products on the basis of potency. This could eventually harm consumers (Caulkins et al. 2015).

A price-based tax is set as a percentage of the value of a product. It is also referred to as excise tax. The tax is treated as a cost of business and is levied on the seller. It is usually passed on to the consumer in the price set at retail level. Thus, there is a risk of countering the intention of discouraging illicit trade. Excise tax is easy and simple to understand an implement.

However, if it is imposed on all players on the production, distribution and sales chain, it encourages tax evasion due to fake prices in the supply chain (Oglesby 2015). Tax based on potency is assessed via a products content of THC. This has the potential to control the quality of products. It is not like tax based on weight. That allows traders to differentiate products on the basis of THC. The tax confronts the quality of a product in direct fashion. Potency tax presents many challenges.

There is need to ensure product quality adherence by reliable testing (Gravelle and Lowry 2014). One outstanding nightmare of regulation is determining at what stage a product should be tested and when to do so. Lab shopping could also be a possible effect of potency tax. Sellers could compromise testers. There is also the question of whether transfers of products along the supply chain should be subjected to tax. Excise tax could be imposed at a specified price per unit when such a product is moved.

It could also be assessed as a percentage of the value of a product at varying transfer points before getting to the consumer. Of course, the tax will also influence consumer prices. How California will approach the tax issue will be determined by a combination of convenience and simplicity. There are some social advantages in a complex tax system. There is a cautionary narrative from Washington though. It was discovered that a complex system created a burden of administrative and regulatory activities and processes. Keeping it simple became more desirable.

Land Use Possibility of Unwanted Land Use The size of the marijuana market in California remains a unique challenge facing the state. Marijuana is currently produced and processed for medical use. However, California is also a large source of illicit marijuana supplies to locations outside the state (Drug Enforcement Administration 2014). There is need, therefore, to create incentives to encourage traders to participate in the legal supply and distribution of the same. There is need to develop systems to monitor the amount of marijuana produced for consumption by Californians.

Colorado developed the Marijuana Inventory Tracking System to monitor supply and deter diversion. Washington has a similar system for tracking legal cultivation of marijuana, testing, production, transportation, destruction and sale at retail level. By developing effective monitoring and licensing systems, California will be following the guidelines provided by the state. There is also need for stringent measures against illegal dealing in marijuana for the legal approach to bear fruit. The process of licensing is a complex one.

The amount of control California wants to impose on the production, distribution and consumption of marijuana should determine the licensing rigors. The priority is in structuring the marijuana industry. There is the question as to whether licensing should encourage a vertically intergraded market scenario where businesses operate through the supply chain or whether the industry needs to be horizontally integrated where businesses needed to only be licensed in one section of the supply chain. Vertical integration allows access to inputs through the supply chain.

The effect is a better cost control regime and an efficient delivery of products to the eventual consumer. However, if the goal is to encourage more participation, horizontal participation is desirable (Murphy and Carnevale 2016). Horizontal structure could be crafted to promote smaller businesses while a vertical structure encourages larger businesses to control the industry. There is need for California to consider the desire by the U.S. department of justice to put a cap on the number of participants in the marijuana industry.

A robust and strong system of licensing would be easier to manage than a competitive market with many participants. Yet, restricting the issuance of licenses might endanger the efforts to encourage illicit traders and users into the legal realms (Fischer et al. 2011). Although Colorado has not imposed limits on the number of licenses issued, the application process is rigorous nonetheless. Washington initially capped the number of licenses at 334 based on the consumption demand. The number was later revised to 556 because of the need to provide medical patients with marijuana.

There is need to control the production activities. There is need to impose canopy regulations to include cultivation rules in areas that are densely populated. There is need for example to restrict cultivation of the crop within 1000 feet of a property boundary or close to recreational facilities and schools (Fischer, Kuganesan & Room 2014). One way of achieving control is targeting the total production for the legal market segment. Canopy limits can be imposed and the number of licensed growers determined.

Capping the number of licenses an organization or individual can be issued with will ensure participation by the smaller players. Regulation of production might entail imposing requirements for residency. Restricting outside investment will help to deter illegal trade in marijuana. It will also allow residents of California to gain from the trade in marijuana and also boost the revenue collection by the state. It is noted, however, that short-term residency might encourage an influx of new residents with interest in sharing in the marijuana pie.

The duration allowed for residency will influence who participates in the marijuana business (Fischer et al. 2014). The state of California presets a unique scenario in the protection for the environment by those interested in growing marijuana. Colorado and Washington never included environmental protection clauses in the legalization of marijuana laws. Medical regulations for marijuana require mitigating the collective and individual impacts of diversion of water and discharge in relation to in-stream flows required for spawning of fish, rearing and migration.

Future regulations might need to consider requiring that marijuana waste be made useless without damaging the environment. To control.