Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:03 am
Time: 1:03 am
Results for medical marijuana
6 results foundAuthor: Jacobson, Mireille Title: Regulating Medical Marijuana Dispensaries: An Overview with Preliminary Evidence of Their Impact on Crime Summary: Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have passed laws that allow certain individuals to use marijuana for medical purposes. This report provides an overview of state medical marijuana laws and preliminary findings on the relationship between medical marijuana dispensaries and local crime, based on results from an ongoing analysis in the City of Los Angeles. The authors analyzed data for the ten days prior to and ten days following the June 7, 2010, closure of over 70 percent of the 638 dispensaries then in operation. Crime reports within a few blocks around closed dispensaries were compared with crime reports near those that remained open. The authors found that crime increased in the vicinity of closed dispensaries relative to the vicinity around dispensaries allowed to remain open. The effects are concentrated on crimes, such as breaking and entering and assault, which may be particularly sensitive to the presence of security. Hypotheses for what might drive these results include the loss of on-site security and surveillance, a reduction in foot traffic, a resurgence in outdoor drug activity, or a change in police efforts. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2011. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 26, 2011 at: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2011/RAND_TR987.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/technical_reports/2011/RAND_TR987.pdf Shelf Number: 122906 Keywords: Drug Abuse and CrimeDrug Abuse TreatmentDrug PolicyMedical Marijuana |
Author: Anderson, D. Mark Title: Medical Marijuana Laws, Traffic Fatalities, and Alcohol Consumption Summary: To date, 16 states have passed medical marijuana laws, yet very little is known about their effects. Using state-level data, we examine the relationship between medical marijuana laws and a variety of outcomes. Legalization of medical marijuana is associated with increased use of marijuana among adults, but not among minors. In addition, legalization is associated with a nearly 9 percent decrease in traffic fatalities, most likely to due to its impact on alcohol consumption. Our estimates provide strong evidence that marijuana and alcohol are substitutes. Details: Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor, 2011. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: IZA DP No. 6112: Accessed January 18, 2012 at: http://ftp.iza.org/dp6112.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://ftp.iza.org/dp6112.pdf Shelf Number: 123651 Keywords: Alcohol AbuseDriving Under the InfluenceMedical MarijuanaTraffic Fatalities |
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: Schwartz, David S. Title: High Federalism: Marijuana Legalization and the Limits of Federal Power to Regulate States Summary: The conflict between state marijuana legalization and the blanket federal marijuana prohibition of the Controlled Substances Act ("CSA") has created a federalism crisis in which the duties of state officials to adhere to state or federal law is unclear. Current federalism doctrine cannot even tell us whether or not a local police officer who encounters a person in state-authorized possession of marijuana must arrest the person and seize the marijuana. The two most clearly applicable federalism doctrines -- the Tenth Amendment anti-commmandeering doctrine and the doctrine of federal preemption of state law under the Supremacy Clause" offer only unsatisfactory answers. Anti-commandeering doctrine is incapable of telling us whether a federally imposed duty to arrest and seize the marijuana possessor is impermissible commandeering, permissible "general applicability," or permissible preemption, let alone answer the more complex federalism questions posed by state marijuana legalization. Alternatively, a strong preemption approach, while capable of producing consistent results in theory, would entail the virtual abandonment of the anti-commandeering doctrine and of judicial enforcement of federalism more generally, while at the same time violating important premises of the "political safeguards of federalism" theory. The article argues that courts should pursue a middle path by applying a rigorous presumption against commandeering when considering the obligation of state officials to adhere to federal laws. This approach is faithful to consensus principles of federalism that should command the agreement of judges and academics on both sides of the judicial versus political safeguards of federalism debate. A presumption against commandeering, when applied to the CSA, requires that state officials be afforded broad latitude to enforce their states' legalization laws and have no compelled obligations to enforce federal law beyond a duty to refrain from active obstruction of federal officers. The extent of Congress's power to command state official compliance with the CSA can be considered if and when such an amendment to the CSA is under serious congressional consideration" something that may never occur given the current political trend. Details: Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Law School, 2013. Source: Internet Resource: Univ. of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1222 : Accessed June 25, 2013 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2237618 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2237618 Shelf Number: 129156 Keywords: Drug PolicyMarijuana Legalization (U.S.)Medical Marijuana |
Author: Mikos, Robert A. Title: On the Limits of Federal Supremacy: When States Relax (or Abandon) Marijuana Bans Summary: he American Constitution divides governmental power between the federal government and several state governments. In the event of a conflict between federal law and state law, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2P makes it clear that state policies are subordinate to federal policies. There are, however, important limitations to the doctrine of federal supremacy. First, there must be a valid constitutional basis for the federal policy in question. The powers of the federal government are limited and enumerated, and the president and Congress must always respect the boundary lines that the Constitution created. Second, even in the areas where federal authorities may enact law, they may not use the states as instruments of federal governance. This anti-commandeering limitation upon federal power is often overlooked, but the Supreme Court will enforce that principle in appropriate cases. Using medical marijuana as a case study, I examine how the anti-commandeering principle protects the states' prerogative to legalize activity that Congress bans. The federal government has banned marijuana outright, and for years federal officials have lobbied against local efforts to legalize medical use of the drug. However, an ever-growing number of states have adopted legalization measures. I explain why these state laws, and most related regulations, have not been-and cannot be-preempted by Congress. I also develop a new framework for analyzing the boundary between the proper exercise of federal supremacy and prohibited commandeering. Although I focus on medical marijuana, the legal analysis applies to any issue pitting permissive state laws against restrictive federal regulations. Recent referenda in Colorado and Washington that legalize the recreational use of marijuana for adults will likely prompt federal officials to respond by touting the supremacy of the federal ban and challenging the constitutionality of state efforts at legalization. Such state reforms should carry the day in the event of such a legal challenge. Details: Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2012. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2016 at: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA714.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA714.pdf Shelf Number: 137840 Keywords: Drug Control PolicyDrug PolicyMarijuanaMedical Marijuana |
Author: Weedmaps Title: Dispelling Myths: The Facts about Marijuana Regulation Summary: Opponents of medical and adult-use cannabis laws often make bold claims about the negative impact marijuana will have on individuals and communities. Examples of these claims include arguments that marijuana is a "gateway drug," that legalization will double traffic fatalities, or that cannabis use results in increased levels of drug abuse and addiction. Establishing effective marijuana laws and regulations is a complicated process, made more difficult when elected leaders and voters lack accurate information. The following paper addresses potential sources of misinformation using the growing body of research that has emerged since the passage of state-level cannabis laws. Through a review of government publications, academic articles, third party studies, and other resources, this paper examines the five most common arguments against marijuana legalization to separate MYTH from FACT. Details: Irvine, CA: Author, 2017. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 14, 2019 at: https://wmpolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/11MJ-Myth-v-Fact.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://wmpolicy.com/white-papers/ Shelf Number: 154165 Keywords: Cannabis LawsCannabis RegulationDrug UseGateway DrugMarijuana LawsMarijuana LegalizationMedical Marijuana |