Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:55 am
Time: 1:55 am
Results for marijuana (u.s.)
9 results foundAuthor: Weber, Samantha, ed. Title: Continued Cultivation of Illegal Marijuana in U.S. Western National Parks Summary: Since 1998, at least 10 western national parks were used as illegal marijuana cultivation sites by Mexican-national drug traffic organizations. This paper documents the continued use of national park lands as illegal cultivation sites through 2011. During the grow season of 2010, the Drug traffic organizations began scouting the hills of Whiskeytown in mid-winter. Supplies and personnel to manage the sites were in place as early as March. Rangers detected six grow sites within Whiskeytown National Recreation Area boundary, and several sites immediately adjacent to the park. Rangers eventually removed 26,028 plants, which had a street value of $78,840,000. Six foreign nationals were arrested, some with weapons, and all believed to be associated with the Mexican drug traffic organizations. Similar situations occur at Sequoia and Kings Canyon Na - tional Parks, Yosemite National Park, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Pt. Reyes National Seashore, Santa Monica National Recreation Area, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, and North Cascades National Park. The drug trafficking organizations are operating year round within the parks. Added to this problem is the increasing number of quasi-legal medical marijuana grow sites operating on remote private land surrounding the parks, often within the same watersheds. Details: Hancock, MI: The George Wright Society, 2012. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2012 at: http://www.georgewright.org/1138milestone.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.georgewright.org/1138milestone.pdf Shelf Number: 125119 Keywords: Drug TraffickersDrug TraffickingMarijuana (U.S.)National ParksPark Rangers |
Author: Taylor, Stuart, Jr. Title: Marijuana Policy and Presidential Leadership: How to Avoid a Federal-State Train Wreck Summary: This paper explores how the federal government and the eighteen states (plus the District of Columbia) that have partially1 legalized medical or recreational marijuana or both since 1996 can be true to their respective laws, and can agree on how to enforce them wisely, while avoiding federal-state clashes that would increase confusion and harm the community and consumers. The paper takes no position (and this writer has no firm conviction) on whether legalizing recreational marijuana use, production, and distribution—as Colorado and Washington have now become the first modern jurisdictions to do—is a good or a bad idea. Rather, the paper seeks to persuade even people who think legalization is a bad idea that the best way to serve the federal interest in protecting public health and safety is not for the federal government to seek to abort state legalization. To the contrary, a federal crackdown would backfire by producing an atomized, anarchic, state-legalized but unregulated marijuana market that federal drug enforcers could neither contain nor force the states to contain. Rather, the Justice Department should use its considerable leverage to ensure that state regulators protect the federal government’s interests in minimizing exports across state lines, sales outside the state-regulated system, sales of unduly large quantities, sales of adulterated products, sales to minors, organized crime involvement, and other abuses. Legalizing states, for their part, must provide adequate funding for their regulators as well as clear rules to show that they will be energetic in protecting federal as well as state interests. If that sort of balance is struck, a win-win can be achieved. And the Obama Administration and legalizing states should take advantage of a provision of the 1970 federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to hammer out clear, contractual cooperation agreements so that stateregulated marijuana businesses will know what they can and cannot safely do. The urgency of this subject is at a zenith because of the ballot initiatives that 55 and 56 percent majorities of the voters in Colorado and Washington, respectively, adopted in November, legalizing possession (and, in Colorado, home growing and gifting) of small quantities of recreational marijuana. Both states are also putting in place plans, effective later this year, to license, regulate, and tax commercial production and distribution of marijuana. Both states had previously legalized medical marijuana. With public opinion tipping toward legalization,2 more states seem poised to legalize medical or recreational marijuana or both in the next few years.3 But the criminal sanctions and other penalties in the CSA for marijuana possession, cultivation, and distribution seem etched in stone by congressional inertia. So the Obama Administration’s response to the Colorado and Washington initiatives, and state officials’ sensitivity to federal law and federal interests, will shape the evolution of state as well as federal drug policy for years to come. The time for presidential leadership on marijuana policy is now. And, happily, Congress long ago directed in the CSA that the Attorney General “shall cooperate” with the states on controlled substances and authorized him “to enter into contractual agreements . . . to provide for cooperative enforcement and regulatory activities.”4 The CSA also gives the Administration ample leverage to insist that the legalizing states take care to protect the federal interests noted above. Details: Washington, DC: Governance Studies, Brookings Institution, 2013. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 12, 2013 at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/04/11%20marijuana%20legalization%20taylor/marijuana%20policy%20and%20presidential%20leadership_v24.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/04/11%20marijuana%20legalization%20taylor/marijuana%20policy%20and%20presidential%20leadership_v24.pdf Shelf Number: 128340 Keywords: Drug LegalizationDrug PolicyMarijuana (U.S.)Medical Marijuana |
Author: Garvey, Todd Title: State Legalization of Recreational Marijuana: Selected Legal Issues Summary: May a state authorize the use of marijuana for recreational purposes even if such use is forbidden by federal law? This novel and unresolved legal question has vexed judges, politicians, and legal scholars, and it has also generated considerable public debate among supporters and opponents of “legalizing” the recreational use of marijuana. Under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the cultivation, distribution, and possession of marijuana are prohibited for any reason other than to engage in federally approved research. Yet 18 states and the District of Columbia currently exempt qualified users of medicinal marijuana from penalties imposed under state law. In addition, Colorado and Washington recently became the first states to legalize, regulate, and tax small amounts of marijuana for nonmedicinal (so-called “recreational”) use by individuals over the age of 21. Thus, the current legal status of marijuana appears to be both contradictory and in a state of flux: as a matter of federal law, activities related to marijuana are generally prohibited and punishable by criminal penalties, whereas at the state level, certain marijuana usage is increasingly being permitted. Individuals and businesses engaging in marijuana-related activities that are authorized by state law nonetheless remain subject to federal criminal prosecution or other consequences under federal law. The Colorado and Washington laws that legalize, regulate, and tax an activity the federal government expressly prohibits appear to be logically inconsistent with established federal policy toward marijuana, and are therefore likely subject to a legal challenge under the constitutional doctrine of preemption. This doctrine generally prevents states from enacting laws that are inconsistent with federal law. Under the Supremacy Clause, state laws that conflict with federal law are generally preempted and therefore void and without effect. Yet Congress intended that the CSA would not displace all state laws associated with controlled substances, as it wanted to preserve a role for the states in regulating controlled substances. States thus remain free to pass laws relating to marijuana, or any other controlled substance, so long as they do not create a “positive conflict” with federal law, such that the two laws “cannot consistently stand together.” This report summarizes the Washington and Colorado marijuana legalization laws and evaluates whether, or the extent to which, they may be preempted by the CSA or by international agreements. It also highlights potential responses to these recent legalization initiatives by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and identifies other noncriminal consequences that marijuana users may face under federal law. Finally, the report closes with a description of legislative proposals introduced in the 113th Congress relating to the treatment of marijuana under federal law, including H.R. 499 (Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2013); H.R. 501 (Marijuana Tax Equity Act of 2013); H.R. 689 (States’ Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act); H.R. 710 (Truth in Trials Act); H.R. 784 (States’ Medical Marijuana Property Rights Protection Act); and H.R. 964 (Respect States’ and Citizens’ Rights Act of 2013). Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Services, 2013. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: R43034: Accessed April 16, 2013 at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43034.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43034.pdf Shelf Number: 128387 Keywords: Drug LegalizationDrug Policy ReformMarijuana (U.S.) |
Author: Galston, William A. Title: The New Politics of Marijuana Legalization Summary: Over less than a decade, public opinion has shifted dramatically toward support for the legalization of marijuana. For many years, opinion on the issue was quite stable, but the turn of the millennium unsettled this long-standing consensus: sentiment in favor of legalization has increased by 20 points in just over a decade. The proportion of Americans who view marijuana use as immoral has fallen from 50 percent to 32 percent in just seven years. A recent national survey showed a narrow national majority in favor of legalization, and its supporters translated this sentiment into ballot initiative victories in Colorado and Washington State in 2012. Some of the change is likely to be durable. The 4-to-1 edge that opponents of legalization enjoyed twenty years ago has almost certainly vanished permanently. Momentum is on the side of those favoring legalization. Support for legalization is especially strong among the young, while the only age group staunchly opposed consists of those 65 years old and over. Unless the younger generation substantially alters its views as it ages, generational change alone is likely to keep support well above the levels of the relatively recent past, even if enthusiasm for legalization wanes. One possible explanation for the shift is a sharp decline over the past generation in the proportion of Americans who see marijuana as a “gateway” to harder drugs. That decline has been steepest among those who have never tried marijuana. In addition, some surveys have found that a slim majority now believes that alcohol is more harmful than marijuana to both individuals and society. The implicit syllogism: if we long ago ceased regarding alcohol use as morally wrong, why should we continue to think this way about marijuana use? Details: Washington, DC:Governance Studies The Brookings Institution, 2013. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 1, 2013 at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/05/29%20politics%20marijuana%20legalization%20galston%20dionne/dionne%20galston_newpoliticsofmjleg_final.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/05/29%20politics%20marijuana%20legalization%20galston%20dionne/dionne%20galston_newpoliticsofmjleg_final.pdf Shelf Number: 128907 Keywords: Drug LegalizationDrug PolicyMarijuana (U.S.) |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: The War on Marijuana in Black and White: Billions of Dollars Wasted on Racially Biased Arrests Summary: This report is the first to examine marijuana possession arrest rates by race for all 50 states (and the District of Columbia) and their respective counties from 2001 to 2010. The report relies on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program and the United States Census’ annual county population estimates to document arrest rates by race per 100,000 for marijuana possession. The report finds that between 2001 and 2010, there were over 8 million marijuana arrests in the United States, 88% of which were for possession. Marijuana arrests have increased between 2001 and 2010 and now account for over half (52%) of all drug arrests in the United States, and marijuana possession arrests account for nearly half (46%) of all drug arrests. In 2010, there was one marijuana arrest every 37 seconds, and states spent combined over $3.6 billion enforcing marijuana possession laws. The report also finds that, on average, a Black person is 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than a white person, even though Blacks and whites use marijuana at similar rates. Such racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests exist in all regions of the country, in counties large and small, urban and rural, wealthy and poor, and with large and small Black populations. Indeed, in over 96% of counties with more than 30,000 people in which at least 2% of the residents are Black, Blacks are arrested at higher rates than whites for marijuana possession. The report concludes that the War on Marijuana, like the larger War on Drugs of which it is a part, is a failure. It has needlessly ensnared hundreds of thousands of people in the criminal justice system, had a staggeringly disproportionate impact on African- Americans, and comes at a tremendous human and financial cost. The price paid by those arrested and convicted of marijuana possession can be significant and linger for years, if not a lifetime. Arrests and convictions for possessing marijuana can negatively impact public housing and student financial aid eligibility, employment opportunities, child custody determinations, and immigration status. Further, the War on Marijuana has been a fiscal fiasco. The taxpayers’ dollars that law enforcement agencies waste enforcing marijuana possession laws could be better spent on addressing and solving serious crimes and working collaboratively with communities to build trust and increase public health and safety. Despite the fact that aggressive enforcement of marijuana laws has been an increasing priority of police departments across the country, and that states have spent billions of dollars on such enforcement, it has failed to diminish marijuana’s use or availability. To repair this country’s wrecked War on Marijuana, the ACLU recommends that marijuana be legalized for persons 21 or older through a system of taxation, licensing, and regulation. Legalization is the smartest and surest way to end targeted enforcement of marijuana laws in communities of color, and, moreover, would eliminate the costs of such enforcement while generating revenue for cash-strapped states. States could then reinvest the money saved and generated into public schools and public health programs, including substance abuse treatment. If legalization is not possible, the ACLU recommends depenalizing marijuana use and possession for persons 21 or older by removing all attendant civil and criminal penalties, or, if depenalization is unobtainable, decriminalizing marijuana use and possession for adults and youth by classifying such activities as civil, not criminal, offenses. The ACLU also recommends that until legalization or depenalization is achieved, law enforcement agencies and district attorney offices should deprioritize enforcement of marijuana possession laws. In addition, police should end racial profiling and unconstitutional stop, frisk, and search practices, and no longer measure success and productivity by the number of arrests they make. Further, states and the federal government should eliminate the financial incentives and rewards that enable and encourage law enforcement to make large numbers of arrests, including for low-level offenses such as marijuana possession. In sum, it is time to end marijuana possession arrests. Details: New York: ACLU, 2013. 187p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 6, 2013 at: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu-thewaronmarijuana-rel2.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu-thewaronmarijuana-rel2.pdf Shelf Number: 128970 Keywords: Drug EnforcementDrug LegalizationMarijuana (U.S.)Racial DiscriminationRacial DisparitiesRacial Profiling in Law Enforcement |
Author: Finklea, Kristin Title: State Marijuana Legalization Initiatives: Implications for Federal Law Enforcement Summary: Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug across the world, including in the United States. In 2011, an estimated 18.1 million individuals in the United States aged 12 or older (7% of this population) had used marijuana in the past month. The rate of reported marijuana use in 2011 was significantly higher than those rates reported prior to 2009. Mirroring this increase in use, marijuana availability in the United States has also increased. This growth has been linked to factors such as rising marijuana production in Mexico, decreasing marijuana eradication in Mexico, and increasing marijuana cultivation in the United States led by criminal networks including Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Along with the uptick in the availability and use of marijuana in the United States, there has been a general shift in public attitudes toward the substance. In 1969, 12% of the surveyed population supported legalizing marijuana; today, more than half (52%) of surveyed adults have expressed opinions that marijuana should be legalized. And, 60% indicate that the federal government should not enforce its marijuana laws in states that allow the use of marijuana. The federal government—through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA; P.L. 91-513; 21 U.S.C. §801 et. seq.)—prohibits the manufacture, distribution, dispensation, and possession of marijuana. Over the last few decades, some states have deviated from an across-the-board prohibition of marijuana. Evolving state-level positions on marijuana include decriminalization initiatives, legal exceptions for medical use, and legalization of certain quantities for recreational use. Notably, in the November 2012 elections, voters in Washington State and Colorado voted to legalize, regulate, and tax the recreational use of small amounts of marijuana. These latest moves have spurred a number of questions regarding their potential implications for related federal law enforcement activities and for the nation’s drug policies on the whole. Among these questions is whether or to what extent state initiatives to decriminalize, or even legalize, the use of marijuana conflict with federal law. In general, federal law enforcement has tailored its efforts to target criminal networks rather than individual criminals; its stance regarding marijuana offenders appears consistent with this position. While drug-related investigations and prosecutions remain a priority for federal law enforcement, the Obama Administration has suggested that efforts will be harnessed against large-scale trafficking organizations rather than on recreational users of marijuana. Some may question whether state-level laws and regulations regarding marijuana prohibition—in particular those that clash with federal laws—may adversely impact collaborative law enforcement efforts and relationships. Currently, there is no evidence to suggest that the operation of these collaborative bodies will be impacted by current state-level marijuana decriminalization or legalization initiatives. Data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission seem to indicate a federal law enforcement focus on trafficking as opposed to possession offenses. Of the federal drug cases with marijuana listed as the primary drug type (28% of total drug cases sentenced), over 98% involved a sentence for drug trafficking in 2012. A number of criminal networks rely heavily on profits generated from the sale of illegal drugs— including marijuana—in the United States. As such, scholars and policymakers have questioned whether or how any changes in state or federal marijuana policy in the United States might impact organized crime proceeds and levels of drug trafficking-related violence, particularly in Mexico. In short, there are no definitive answers to these questions; without clear understanding of (1) actual proceeds generated by the sale of illicit drugs in the United States, (2) the proportion of total proceeds attributable to the sale of marijuana, and (3) the proportion of marijuana sales controlled by criminal organizations and affiliated gangs, any estimates of how marijuana legalization might impact the drug trafficking organizations are purely speculative. Given the differences between federal marijuana policies and those of states including Colorado and Washington, Congress may choose to address state legalization initiatives in a number of ways, or choose to take no action. Among the host of options, policymakers may choose to amend or affirm federal marijuana policy, exercise oversight over federal law enforcement activities, or incentivize state policies through the provision or denial of certain funds. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2013. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: R43164: Accessed August 8, 2013 at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43164.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43164.pdf Shelf Number: 129595 Keywords: Drug EnforcementDrug LegalizationDrug PolicyMarijuana (U.S.) |
Author: Police Executive Research Forum Title: New Challenges for Police: A Heroin Epidemic and Changing Attitudes Toward Marijuana Summary: Is the United States fundamentally shifting its approach to drugs? That's a question underlying this report. I think that in many ways, the nation still sees the harm that drugs cause to individual lives and to the fabric of our society. There is no question that drug abuse is a scourge and a tragedy. And the related issue of gang violence associated with drug trafficking is one of the biggest problems in many U.S. cities. Still, around the edges, changes are noticeable. This report details two of those changes. Surge in heroin abuse: First, we are experiencing a spreading epidemic of heroin abuse in many cities and towns across the nation. At the PERF Summit that is the center of this report, FBI Director James Comey told us he has been traveling the nation, and in every single FBI field office he has visited, people have been talking about heroin. Marijuana legalization: The other major topic of this report-the legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington State this year-is another issue where there has been a shift in attitude. Public opinion about marijuana obviously has been changing for some time. Nearly half of the 50 states have legalized medical marijuana, going back as far as 1996. Details: Washington, DC: PERF, 2014. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Critical Issues in Policing Series: Accessed October 20, 2014 at: http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Series_2/a%20heroin%20epidemic%20and%20changing%20attitudes%20toward%20marijuana.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Series_2/a%20heroin%20epidemic%20and%20changing%20attitudes%20toward%20marijuana.pdf Shelf Number: 133742 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug PolicyHeroinMarijuana (U.S.)Marijuana Legalization |
Author: Males, Mike Title: Reforming marijuana laws: Which approach best reduces the harms of criminalization? A Five-State Analysis Summary: The War on Marijuana is losing steam. Policymakers, researchers, and law enforcement are beginning to recognize that arresting and incarcerating people for marijuana possession wastes billions of dollars, does not reduce the abuse of marijuana or other drugs, and results in grossly disproportionate harms to communities of color (ACLU, 2013; Ingram, 2014). Marijuana reforms are now gaining traction across the nation, generating debates over which strategies best reduce the harms of prohibition. Should marijuana be decriminalized or legalized? Should it be restricted to people 21 and older? Advocates of the latter strategy often argue their efforts are intended to protect youth (Newsom, 2014; Holder, 2013; Californians for Marijuana Legalization and Control, 2014). However, if the consequences of arrest for marijuana possession - including fines, jail time, community service, a criminal record, loss of student loans, and court costs - are more harmful than use of the drug (Marijuana Arrest Research Project, 2012), it is difficult to see how continued criminalization of marijuana use by persons under 21 protects the young. Currently, people under 21 make up less than one-third of marijuana users, yet half of all marijuana possession arrests (ACLU, 2013; Males, 2009). This analysis compares five states that implemented major marijuana reforms over the last five years, evaluating their effectiveness in reducing marijuana arrests and their impact on various health and safety outcomes. Two types of reforms are evaluated: all-ages decriminalization (California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts), and 21-and-older legalization (Colorado and Washington). The chief conclusions are: - All five states experienced substantial declines in marijuana possession arrests. The four states with available data also showed unexpected drops in marijuana felony arrests. - All-ages decriminalization more effectively reduced marijuana arrests and associated harms for people of all ages, particularly for young people. - Marijuana decriminalization in California has not resulted in harmful consequences for teenagers, such as increased crime, drug overdose, driving under the influence, or school dropout. In fact, California teenagers showed improvements in all risk areas after reform. - Staggering racial disparities remain - and in some cases are exacerbated - following marijuana reforms. African Americans are still more likely to be arrested for marijuana offenses after reform than all other races and ethnicities were before reform. - Further reforms are needed in all five states to move toward full legalization and to address racial disparities. Details: San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2014. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 15, 2014 at: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/cjcj_marijuana_reform_comparison.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/cjcj_marijuana_reform_comparison.pdf Shelf Number: 134092 Keywords: Drug Abuse PolicyDrug PolicyDrug ReformMarijuana (U.S.)War on Drugs |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: State Marijuana Legalization: DOJ Should Documents Its Approach to Monitoring the Effects of Legalization Summary: Officials from the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG) reported monitoring the effects of state marijuana legalization relative to DOJ policy, generally in two ways. First, officials reported that U.S. Attorneys prosecute cases that threaten federal marijuana enforcement priorities (see fig. below) and consult with state officials about areas of federal concern, such as the potential impact on enforcement priorities of edible marijuana products. Second, officials reported they collaborate with DOJ components, including the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and other federal agencies, including the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and assess various marijuana enforcement-related data these agencies provide. However, DOJ has not documented its monitoring process, as called for in Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government . Documenting a plan specifying its monitoring process would provide DOJ with greater assurance that its monitoring activities relative to DOJ marijuana enforcement guidance are occurring as intended. Further, making this plan available to appropriate DOJ components can provide ODAG with an opportunity to gain institutional knowledge with respect to its monitoring plan, including the utility of the data ODAG is using. This can better position ODAG to identify state systems that are not effectively protecting federal enforcement priorities and, if necessary, take steps to challenge these systems in accordance with DOJ marijuana enforcement guidance. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2015. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-16-1: Accessed May 16, 2016 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/674464.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/674464.pdf Shelf Number: 139053 Keywords: Drug Enforcement Drug Legalization Drug Policy Marijuana (U.S.) |