In a three-part installment of Baker Institute Viewpoints that starts today, experts examine possible regulatory frameworks for legalized marijuana. Leading off for Viewpoints is guest writer Tom Heddleston, Ph.D., whose dissertation examined the formation and development of the medical marijuana movement in California.
More from this series:
- “What is the best regulatory framework for legalized marijuana?,” by Gary Hale, Baker Institute nonresident fellow in drug policy
- “Optimal marijuana regulation,” by Nathan Jones, Baker Institute Alfred C. Glassell III Postdoctoral Fellow in Drug Policy
Colorado and Washington are preparing to embark on a bold new approach to cannabis by deviating from the hallowed path of prohibition. In light of the erratic approach that federal law enforcement has taken to medical cannabis over the past three years, this is a daunting task. Luckily, both laws are very specific in spelling out what legislatures, governors and state agencies are required to do. Past lessons from the regulation of alcohol and medical cannabis also serve to light the way.
Material questions center on whether legalization should occur at the state or local level, whether retail points should be allowed and regulated, whether retail points should be publicly or privately run, what restrictions should be placed on advertising and age limits, and how should governments handle enforcement and taxation. Both laws take critical steps in providing a new regulatory framework by addressing these issues. Importantly, each law features provisions that outline how state agencies should regulate and tax the sale of cannabis through retail establishments.
The authors of both I-502 and Amendment 64 have taken pains to avoid some of the controversies that characterize state medical marijuana laws. Both California and Washington have been vague when it comes to regulating how medical marijuana can be sold with remarkable and often confusing variation in local restrictions and regulations. In California, dispensary regulations vary by city and county and there is no central state agency tasked with enforcing regulations. Some cities have used local law to tax and regulate medical cannabis dispensaries while other cities and counties have banned dispensaries outright. Colorado has taken a contrasting approach by centralizing dispensary regulations and their enforcement in the Department of Revenue. Although cities have the option of banning or allowing dispensaries, the same state regulations tie the Colorado dispensary system together. Colorado’s uniform guidelines contribute to the legitimization and transparency of dispensaries in the state.
Colorado’s Amendment 64 takes a similar approach to regulating “marijuana establishments.” The Colorado Department of Revenue is tasked with formulating guidelines for “marijuana establishments” by July 2013. These guidelines are intended to address advertising and age restrictions and establish civil penalties for violations. The law also calls upon the Department of Revenue to codify quality control and labeling requirements. The state legislature is tasked with making “statutory changes” with regard to possessing, cultivating, and selling cannabis for those over 21. The Colorado law allows local governments to “process marijuana licenses if the Department of Revenue does not adopt regulations or fails to process and issue licenses.” It also allows local governments to set their own policies with regard to the number and hours of “marijuana operations .”
This arrangement is optimal with regard to instituting an approach to legal cannabis that is both clear and effective in providing for the needs of communities and cannabis consumers alike. Washington’s Initiative 502 is also specific about formulating regulations for marijuana “producers” and “retailers,” tasking the Washington Liquor Control Board with the process . In addition to providing guidance for state and local law enforcement, having regulations that are uniform at the state level could help to insulate states from interference from federal law enforcement agencies.
At present, policymakers in Washington and Colorado are finalizing the details of their policies. Both states have been wise to restrict the use of cannabis to those over 21. This will decrease the recruitment of new cannabis users among minors. Both states would also be wise to restrict advertising and signage by retail points. Advertising should not be allowed on billboards and in print media targeted to youth. Advertising should be limited but not banned entirely. Reasonable zoning requirements are also necessary to ensure that retail points are not “zoned out” of existence while ensuring that they are not located too close to schools.
Amendment 64 and I-502 will allow state and local governments the ability to actively regulate the cultivation, sale and consumption of cannabis. By restricting use and sale to those over 21, limiting public advertising and signage, and specifying labeling and quality control, policymakers will increase their capacity to shape who consumes cannabis and how it is produced and taxed. Such policy outcomes are unavailable when the criminal law is used exclusively. Criminalization channels the cannabis economy into the illicit market, where age and quality control limits are nonexistent and inflated profits fuel violence and corruption.
It appears that federal law enforcement agencies may allow the states to enact their policies with minimal interference. According to the Seattle Times, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee expressed his commitment to implementation in a meeting with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder . It is difficult, however, to forecast whether federal law enforcement agencies will work against the implementation of the new laws over the long term. If they do it begs two questions: Whose interest is served when federal law enforcement agencies work to undermine state and local efforts to increase their capacity for regulation? Why do federal agencies seek to maintain an approach that criminalizes a large segment of otherwise law abiding citizens and burdens ethnic minorities with a disproportionate share of criminal penalties?
Tom Heddleston earned his Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California, Santa Cruz in 2012. His dissertation examined the formation and development of the medical marijuana movement in California. Heddleston holds a masters degree in criminology and criminal justice from Florida State University, where he worked at the Journal of Drug Issues. His research interests include drug policy, criminology and social movements. Heddleston has presented his research at both academic and policy conferences. He has written articles that examine medical marijuana patients and the history of marijuana in North America.