The GW Justice Journal

By Amanda Presutti

The United States federal government has held a negative perception of the medical and recreational use, and sale of marijuana in past generations. The government has projected a public outlook of marijuana that likens it to other illicit drugs such as heroin and methamphetamine. Furthermore, the United States has supported the prohibition of the drug throughout the country and has made citizens wary of its negative effects on individuals and society at large.

However, in recent years, the view of marijuana in the United States has begun to change. Various individual states have begun to reconsider the significance of marijuana through a more positive light because of its value as a medical tool. Few states have even acknowledged the monetary profits that a legalized product could reap and the violence and corruption that it could potentially eliminate. In contrast, other states have taken a more conservative approach and have refrained from legalizing marijuana for any purpose.

To delve further into detail on this liberal perspective, proponents of the decriminalization of marijuana believe that “legalizing and regulating [it] will bring the nations largest cash crop under the rule of the law, creating jobs and economic opportunities in the formal economy instead of the illicit market.”[1] Moreover, the criminalization of marijuana creates an underground market that has the potential to incite violence and political corruption, especially among youth.

The strongest supporters of marijuana have created laws that approved the regulation of marijuana in terms that are similar to the federal government’s position on alcohol consumption. In fact, in Colorado and Washington the recreational use of marijuana has been permitted through the state. Specifically, state law permits that persons 21 or older can buy up to an ounce of marijuana at a licensed store with government identification and are legally allowed to grow up to six marijuana plants in their home.[2] In the city of Denver, the recreational use of marijuana was even decriminalized for people between the ages of 18 and 21.[3]

In addition to these most radical legislative changes, 20 states and the District of Columbia have decided to allow the use and possession of marijuana for medical purposes. The attorney general just recently announced the creation of a policy that would facilitate the incorporation of state-legalized marijuana businesses into banking systems. In this way, state governments could eliminate the need to deal with large amounts of cash, thus eradicating public safety risks for employees and police officers. Lastly, supporters of marijuana legalization have established that more than 30% of the United States population lives under some form of marijuana decriminalization law, and they believe that these laws have not contributed to an increase in marijuana consumption nor negatively impacted adolescent attitudes towards drug use.[4]

In contrast to the liberal outlook of some states, other states have taken assertive action against the decriminalization of marijuana and have not taken any effort to legalize the drug. Rather, this portion of the United States population has a more conservative viewpoint in that they believe the legalization of marijuana would create more problems within the country. These constituents hold the opinion that marijuana is an addictive drug, which creates a disturbance among youth and even older generations. Moreover, some states have a negative perspective on the legalization of marijuana because they deem it an illegitimate way of creating profit or providing a source of medical relief, as it is a potentially addicting drug.

From the conservative end of the political spectrum, the Office of National Drug Control Policy “steadfastly opposes legalization of marijuana and other drugs because legalization would increase the availability and use of illicit drugs, and pose significant health and safety risks to all Americans, particularly young people.”[5] In Obama’s 2010 National Drug Control Strategy, he stated that “‘keeping drugs illegal reduces their availability and lessens willingness to use them. That is why this Administration firmly opposes the legalization of marijuana or any other illicit drug.”[6] Opponents of marijuana have rallied behind this statement, although opinions have undoubtedly changed since 2010. Not only do opponents disprove their own states should prohibit marijuana; they also believe that the federal government should enact laws to prohibit the use and sale of marijuana throughout the country.

Due to the unique political system of the United States, each state has the ability to determine the legality of marijuana on an individualized basis. In other words, each state has been delegated full discretion in defining its own marijuana laws. States may make personalized decisions based on the consensus of their constituents’ interests rather than the dictation of the federal government. Because the government provides states this opportunity to expand power, they have naturally taken diverging directions in approaching this issue. These differing perspectives are apparent by the legalized recreational usage of marijuana in Colorado and Washington in comparison to other states’ refusals to legalize the drug for solely medical purposes. Because of these differences, stances on the issue have been rapidly polarizing. Moreover, the polarized sentiments regarding decriminalization have recently culminated in the creation of several marijuana-related bills.

Several bills were passed through the House of Representatives’ committee revisions and will likely go through to the House floor to potentially be formally ratified. HR 1523, known as the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act and introduced by Representative Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA), would allow individual states to determine their policies regarding marijuana without interference from the federal government.[7] Working off of this bill, HR 499, known as the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act and introduced by Representative Jared Polis (D-CO), would replace marijuana prohibition with comprehensive licensing and a system to regulate the production, distribution, and sale of marijuana.[8] HR 689, the States’ Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act which was introduced by Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) at the same time as the other two bills, would make the Controlled Substances Act inapplicable to those acting in compliance with state medical marijuana laws, thus superseding federal discretion in exchange for more state autonomy.[9] Through the passage of the bills, individual states will have the ability to pursue their own endeavors regarding marijuana decriminalization according to the consensus of their constituents and governmental leadership.

The legislative shift portrays the greater, overarching change that is occurring at the most fundamental level of society and government, in that a significant portion of the American population has liberalized its views on previously undisputed issues. As opinions on heated issues continue to polarize, the federal government has been forced to address these points of political contention.

[1] “Marijuana Legalization and Regulation.” Drug Policy Alliance. February 2014. 

[2] Martinez, Michael. “10 Things to Know about Nation’s First Recreational Marijuana shops in Colorado.” CNN. January 1^st, 2014.

[3] Martinez, Michael. “10 Things to Know about Nation’s First Recreational Marijuana shops in Colorado.” CNN. January 1^st, 2014.

[4] “About Marijuana.” National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. January 2014.

[5] “Marijuana.” Office of National Drug Control Policy. January 2014.

[6] “Marijuana.” Office of National Drug Control Policy. January 2014.

[7] “Federal Policy.” Marijuana Policy Project. January 2014.

[8] “Federal Policy.” Marijuana Policy Project. January 2014.

[9] “Federal Policy.” Marijuana Policy Project. January 2014.