Research Paper on Legalizing Marijuana Introduction. Nowadays medical and cultural aspects united with each other due to heated discussions dedicated to the Negative Side of Medical Marijuana. The use of medical marijuana must be thoroughly monitored as it can cause strong Analysis. First of May 08, · Heterogeneity of marijuana products presents further problems for understanding how medical and recreational legalization affect marijuana use disorders. Previous research examining patterns of use and the development of dependence may not generalize to a legal environment in which there is greater social acceptance, fewer perceived risks and harms, and Cited by: Dec 12, · This paper looks at the concept of legalizing marijuana nationwide. It examines what the current literature has to say on marijuana research, medicinal benefits, and legal history of the substance. It also includes a look at the economic benefits of marijuana legalization in states like Colorado
Marijuana Essays: Examples, Topics, Titles, & Outlines
Try out PMC Labs and tell us what you think. Learn More. dnar alucapgro. dnar tramsr, research paper on marijuana. State-level marijuana liberalization policies have been evolving for the past five decades, research paper on marijuana, and yet the overall scientific evidence of the impact of these policies is widely believed to be inconclusive.
In this review we summarize some of the key limitations of the studies evaluating the effects of decriminalization and medical marijuana laws on marijuana use, highlighting their inconsistencies in terms of the heterogeneity of policies, the timing of the evaluations, and the measures of use being considered. We suggest that the heterogeneity in the responsiveness of research paper on marijuana populations to particular laws is important for interpreting the mixed findings from the literature, and we highlight the limitations of the existing literature in providing clear insights into the probable effects of marijuana legalization.
Although the federal law has prohibited the use and distribution of marijuana in the United States sincefor the past five decades states have been experimenting with marijuana liberalization polices. State decriminalization policies were first passed in the s, patient medical access laws began to get adopted in the s, and more recently states have been experimenting with legalization of research paper on marijuana markets.
This has resulted in a spectrum of marijuana research paper on marijuana policies across the United States that is often not fully recognized or considered when conducting evaluations of recent policy changes. Consider for example the state of marijuana policies in the United States at a single point of time. As shown in Figure 1as of January 1,21 states 1 have decriminalized certain marijuana possession offenses NCSL a26 states have legalized medical marijuana use, and another 16 states have adopted cannabidiol CBD -only laws NCSL b that protect only certain strains of marijuana to be used for medicinal purposes.
However, there is tremendous overlap because some research paper on marijuana have implemented combinations of each of these policies, as shown by the fact that the five states currently legalizing research paper on marijuana marijuana use Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia all initially decriminalized marijuana and then passed medical marijuana allowances before passing their legalization policies.
Thus, the vast majority of US states have moved away from a strict prohibition position toward marijuana well before they started considering outright legalization, research paper on marijuana. State marijuana policies as of January 1, Data from the RAND Marijuana Policy Database Pacula et al. Abbreviation: CBD, cannabidiol.
The tremendous policy variation over time and across states would appear to give researchers ample opportunities to quantitatively assess the effect of marijuana liberalization policies on a variety of health and social outcomes. However, the scientific literature has been slow to develop, and what exists in the literature offers generally mixed and largely insignificant findings. This has led many to conclude that the previous liberalization policies must be harmless and that ongoing legalization would similarly generate very little harm to society.
As we will argue throughout this article, however, at least three reasons suggest that we use caution in drawing conclusions from the mixed empirical evidence or, more importantly, in assuming that a change to legally protected commercial markets would result in outcomes similar to those of the previous experiments. First, research paper on marijuana, the literature has largely treated both decriminalization and medical marijuana policies as if they were simple dichotomous choices, implemented similarly across states.
Such a treatment ignores the significant heterogeneity in these policies that can differentially influence harms and benefits and also contributes to what appear to be mixed results from evaluations. Second, the vast majority of policy evaluations conducted thus far examine the effect of the policy in terms of changes in prevalence rates in the general population, which assumes that the proportion of casual and heavy users, who are pooled together in these simple prevalence rates, remains stable even as the policy changes.
Finally, research has been slow to consider the extent to which these changes in policies influence the method by which the research paper on marijuana user consumes marijuana.
In this article, we review the existing literature on the effects of decriminalization and medical marijuana laws on marijuana use and marijuana use disorders in light of these limitations. Unlike other reviews, our goal is not to summarize all the existing literature on the effects of decriminalization and medicalization.
Rather, the purpose of this review is to provide a better understanding of what can be gleaned from the literature when more consideration is given to the complexities of these policies, the populations examined, and the measures of use considered. Doing so allows us to convey the need for more research, in terms of measurement and analysis, before we can truly understand the impacts of marijuana liberalization policies.
It is important for any discussion of the literature to begin by defining the policies being considered. For the purposes of this review, we define four specific marijuana policies prohibition, decriminalization, medical research paper on marijuana, and legalization in terms of their legal definitions rather than their implementation in local communities, as the latter is often a function of the level of enforcement, which is difficult to measure in a systematic and analytic way.
Prohibition, therefore, research paper on marijuana, can be defined as a law that maintains the criminal status of any action related to marijuana possession, use, cultivation, sale, or distribution. The level of crime may be statutorily defined as either a misdemeanor incurring relatively lower criminal penalties that may or may not include jail time or a felony entailing much more serious charges, tougher sanctions, and certain prison timeand the charge may be a function of the amount of marijuana involved or simply of the nature of the activity e.
Regardless, the emphasis is on the criminal status of the related offenses, not the degree to which local law enforcement chooses to enforce it. Decriminalization is a policy that was first defined by the Shaffer Commission also known as the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuseand it describes policies that do not define possession for personal use or casual nonmonetary distribution as a criminal offense. The Shaffer Commission clearly stated that policies that simply lowered the penalties without removing the criminal status of the offense were not technically decriminalized, because they maintained the substantial social harm of the associated criminal convictions Natl.
Marihuana Drug Abus. This distinction between policies that simply lower penalties and those that actually change the legal status of the offense is important, and yet it is not widely understood by many researchers evaluating even the early policies. At least 2 of the 11 widely recognized decriminalized states from the s and s, research paper on marijuana, California and North Carolina, did not remove the criminal status of the offense Pacula et al, research paper on marijuana.
Yet, individuals in depenalization jurisdictions can still face significant barriers to access work, student loans, and public assistance if caught in research paper on marijuana of marijuana, even if they are only charged with a small fine, because they can still get a criminal charge on their record. Medical marijuana laws MMLs remove state penalties for the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes under specified conditions. Although the federal government continues to retain the classification of marijuana as a Schedule I substance with high potential for abuse and no accepted medical value Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act ofP.
Early initiatives through the s aimed to encourage study of the therapeutic value of marijuana, but they had little practical significance due to their heavy reliance on federal cooperation and the failure to establish a legitimate supply channel for patients Pacula et al. These modern MMLs have become the most commonly evaluated policies in comparative alcohol and drugs policy analysis Ritter et al.
Legalization removes criminal and monetary penalties for the possession, use, and supply of marijuana for recreational purposes. Whereas decriminalized countries such as the Netherlands have histories research paper on marijuana de facto legalization, research paper on marijuana, and medical marijuana programs are often regarded as thinly veiled recreational legalization Fischer et al.
The November ballot initiatives passed by voters in Colorado and Washington marked the first time that any jurisdiction worldwide has legally regulated marijuana. Much attention has been given to the recently created retail markets for legal marijuana in these two states, but the commercial model is but one regulatory option for legal production, and a number of alternative strategies are available Caulkins et al. Research has not yet assessed the consequences of legalization, but the effects on the prevalence of marijuana use and use disorders will depend research paper on marijuana on the specific state-level regulations adopted as well as the response of the federal government.
Establishing clear definitions for decriminalized, medicalized, and legalized states is not merely a semantic exercise; rather, it highlights the different mechanisms through which policies may influence use, including changes in perceptions of risk or social disapproval, changes in product availability and variety, research paper on marijuana, and changes in production methods or costs that reduce prices.
Although it is tempting to use evaluations of decriminalization and medical marijuana policies to shed light on the likely consequences of legalization, the experiences of these states may not fully reflect the changes in price, potency, and product variety that will likely result from increased commercialization and promotion under legalization Caulkins et al. Although research paper on marijuana existing literature may be limited in answering how legalization will affect marijuana use and associated outcomes, it offers significant insights into how we should evaluate the effects of marijuana policy changes in a rapidly evolving and multilayered policy environment.
As stated previously, research paper on marijuana, much of the scientific research evaluating the impacts of decriminalization in the United States has ignored the legal definition provided by the Shaffer Commission. In an examination of the original 11 statutes passed shortly after the Shaffer Commission, Pacula and colleagues discovered that 2 of the 11 widely recognized decriminalized states California and North Carolina retained the criminal status of marijuana possession offenses.
Moreover, the research paper on marijuana penalties in 4 of the original 11 states Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, and North Carolina only applied to first-time offenders, a distinction not consistent with the spirit of the Shaffer Commission definition.
A comparison of state statutory penalties in so-called nondecriminalized states and in decriminalized states reveals that it is not possible to uniquely distinguish the two groups Pacula et al. As early asthere were 7 so-called nondecriminalized states that had removed the criminal status of all marijuana possession offenses and another 13 states research paper on marijuana allowed for the reduced penalties and research paper on marijuana of the criminal offense for first-time offenders Pacula et al.
Yet, research continued to use the decriminalization variable to identify differences in state marijuana policies that were not truly based on the criminal status or level of penalties. Given that most US studies have made use of a single dichotomous measure that cannot uniquely differentiate states with lower penalties and reduced criminal status, it is not surprising that they had mixed results. Even early studies research paper on marijuana immediate changes in laws using data from the s and s did not generate consistent findings.
Although several studies making use of population survey data found no statistically significant impact of decriminalization on general prevalence rates of marijuana use Johnston et al. More recent studies that analytically relied on cross-sectional variation in decriminalization status in the late s and s also produced mixed findings. MacCoun et al. Hypotheses offered include a proxy of broader social acceptance of marijuana use and an advertising effect of the reduced policies.
Even beyond the problem of policy measurement, results from US studies evaluating the impact of marijuana decriminalization need to be interpreted with caution for several reasons. First, in many studies, marijuana possession penalties do not vary substantially over time, which analytically confounds the effects of unobserved state characteristics e.
Second, because there is no comprehensive data source reporting the actual penalties incurred by offenders, these studies have all relied on proxies, such as maximum or median fines as indicated by statutory laws. These statutory penalties may or may not accurately reflect the true severity of the penalties imposed in a jurisdiction.
Last, evidence has shown that citizens have relatively limited knowledge as to the statutory penalties and policies for marijuana possession in their states MacCoun et al. InCalifornia became the first state to pass what is now commonly recognized as an MML. As of January25 additional states have passed similar legislation. Empirical evidence consistently shows a strong correlation between MMLs and the prevalence of marijuana use and marijuana use disorders Cerdá et al.
One explanation for the inconsistent findings from causal studies is that the specific provisions of state Research paper on marijuana have varied widely both among states and within any given state over time Pacula et al. The use of a single dichotomous indicator for the initial passage of an MML in policy evaluation obscures both types of variation.
Because the effects of any policy will depend on the specific statutory provisions and their implementation, studies examining outcome data covering different time frames are in fact evaluating the effects of very different policies. Further confounding comparison of prior estimates is the fact that the federal enforcement position has changed over time, and state MML provisions have adapted alongside changes in the federal stance.
We broadly categorize state policies into three waves, each initiated by an important political change: the ballot era —the early legislative era —and the late legislative era —present. The ballot era states are the first seven states that enacted policies through ballot initiatives whether subsequently contested by state courts or not.
These early laws aimed to protect the rights of patients who used medical marijuana and research paper on marijuana caregivers who assisted in that use.
Federal opposition to these policies was explicit, research paper on marijuana, and one month after Proposition passed in California, then-drug czar Barry McCaffrey threatened to arrest any physician who recommended cannabis to a patient Pertwee The threat of federal enforcement created an important barrier to establishing clearly defined legal access to medical marijuana. Early MMLs during the ballot era were often vague, defining medical use broadly to include consumption, home cultivation, production, transportation, and acquisition, research paper on marijuana.
Most of the laws were research paper on marijuana as to the legality of group growing or storefront dispensaries, resulting in confusion among law enforcement, patients, and caregivers as to what constituted legal participation in the medical marijuana market.
Furthermore, the uncertainty of the federal response to these state experiments meant that ballot era policies rarely mandated patients to register with a state research paper on marijuana, making it even more difficult for law enforcement to differentiate legitimate medical users from recreational users.
With the passage of S. Learning from the frustrating experiences of patients and law enforcement under the earlier state policies, states that passed laws during this early legislative era — made more explicit allowances regarding the supply chain. Most laws passed during this period included patient registry provisions, allowances for home cultivation, and limits on the amount of marijuana that patients or caregivers could possess and grow. In addition, many states that had initially passed laws through ballot initiatives e.
Although MMLs during this early legislative era established clearer definitions of what constituted legal supply, uncertainty about the federal response to these policies inhibited a formal state regulation of producers. Through S. New Mexico was the only state in the early legislative era to establish legal provisions for state-licensed dispensaries in its initial legislation in Julybut threats of federal prosecution led to indefinite delays in licensing Baker Protracted legal disputes about the legitimacy of retail outlets under state law combined with tremendous uncertainty about the federal response led to the slow development of medical marijuana markets throughout many states during the early legislative era, which helps explain why many studies evaluating MMLs from this period find insignificant effects on prevalence of marijuana use Anderson et al.
Whereas norms may have been changing in response to these laws, direct access through markets was not necessarily increasing Smart Yet, two studies making use of data from only this time period find a significant positive effect of MML enactment on use among specific high-risk populations ChuPacula et al. Making use of quarterly data from the — Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring ADAMPacula et al. Chu similarly found significant positive effects of MML policies on marijuana possession arrests and marijuana-related treatment admissions, though the results are sensitive to model specification.
These studies may indicate that increased medical marijuana supply in an uncertain policy environment primarily affected marijuana consumption among an at-risk population of heavy users. However, the results are also consistent with endogenous responses by police enforcement or treatment facilities and may not reflect actual changes in use.
The clarification of the federal position dramatically changed the regulatory structure of state medical marijuana supply channels.
Cannabis and its effect on mental health
, time: 8:40Buy Custom Essays at the Best Writing Service: Order Now
May 08, · Heterogeneity of marijuana products presents further problems for understanding how medical and recreational legalization affect marijuana use disorders. Previous research examining patterns of use and the development of dependence may not generalize to a legal environment in which there is greater social acceptance, fewer perceived risks and harms, and Cited by: In this paper we report on findings from a qualitative study of marijuana use by adolescents in two communities in British Columbia, Canada. During and , 45 interviews were carried out at schools with students aged , with an aim of understanding how adolescents perceive their experiences with marijuana to be shaped by gender Dec 12, · This paper looks at the concept of legalizing marijuana nationwide. It examines what the current literature has to say on marijuana research, medicinal benefits, and legal history of the substance. It also includes a look at the economic benefits of marijuana legalization in states like Colorado
No comments:
Post a Comment