In the United States, marijuana is categorized as a narcotic, thus the consumption or distribution of the drug is illegal federally. However, some states have worked towards legalizing marijuana with certain regulations, including the state of California. Prior to the implementation of The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (Proposition 64) on November 8, 2016, there is statistical evidence of a report by the California NORML organization where Hispanics and Black Americans are disproportionally arrested for marijuana-related charges.
Before the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (Proposition 64) was passed in the State of California on November 8, 2016. Proposition 64 was introduced to the American citizens, its intents included; taxing cannabis dispensaries, legalizing the consumption of marijuana for adults over 21, and allowing cities to resentence and/or remove marijuana-related charges. There is an online summary of the law with various sections and codes, titled, “Comprehensive Adult Use of Marijuana Act-2016 Proposition 64”, the focus is Section 3 which includes the purpose and intent of the law. An overarching incentive of the law was to reduce crime rates given the opening of new businesses for more job opportunities. Moreover, former laws used to incarcerate people for marijuana-related charges would be modified like allowing adults over the age of 21 to use marijuana for recreational purposes.
When The Adult Use of Marijuana Act was passed with a majority of votes, 57.13%, on November 8, 2016, a significant focus was the removal and/or reduction of marijuana-related charges for prisoners. The law became an initiation for the decriminalization of marijuana and of the people who were disproportionately arrested, such as Hispanic and Black Americans. For the law to be set into motion, cities and counties have taken action into removing or decreasing sentences, some include, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego. In an article titled, “California cities drop thousands of marijuana conviction” it includes,” San Diego District Attorney Summer Stephan said prosecutors in her office immediately reviewed all pending marijuana-related cases after the ballot measure passed. Soon, 55 people were released from jail and hundreds more removed from probation.” (Elias). San Diego is a prime example of how attorneys and prosecutors have worked together in order to remove sentences for inmates in their city.
Historically, during the Mexican Revolution of 1910, many Mexicans that migrated to the United States would consume marijuana. However, Americans began to distrust Mexican people, and according to the article in the site, Britannica, “Why is Marijuana Illegal in the U.S”, the writer appoints, “Amid a growing fear of Mexican immigrants, hysterical claims about the drug began to circulate, such as allegations that it caused a ‘lust for blood’.” (Tikkanen). White Americans developed racist and xenophobic views of Mexicans, and marijuana became a symbol of that hatred. Thereafter, the United States government moved towards criminalizing cannabis, and on August 2, 1937, The Marihuana Tax Act (1937) was enacted, and it prohibited the transportation and possession of marijuana under federal law. Moving onto decades later, on June 18, 1971, President Nixon initiated the “war on drugs”, targetting communities of predominantly Hispanic and Black Americans, reinforcing racism. Various states moved towards legalizing marijuana such as California, and the first initiative was Proposition 19 (1972) but it failed to pass with a 66.5% vote. However, years later, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Proposition 215) allowed the use of medical cannabis, marking a step towards the legalization of marijuana for the state.
When Proposition 64 emerged in 2016, there were political officials, parties like the California Democratic Party, and organizations like CA NORML in support of the proposition. The opponent’s side also included political officials, parties like the California Republican Party, and organizations like Fight Crime, Invest in Kids California. The online source, “Ballotpedia” includes supporters of Proposition 64 and those who were against the act, all those in favor argued various points including how it would diminish the illegal drug trade, increase the economy through taxes and open new job opportunities. However, opponents claimed that if the proposition would pass there would be more drug sales in the streets, place small marijuana farms out of business, and the advertisement of the drug would negatively impact the youth.
The Adult Use of Marijuana Act was implemented on November 8, 2016, in the state of California, allowing the reduction and/or removal of sentences for marijuana-related charges. In addition, permitting adults over 21 to consume and cultivate marijuana for recreational purposes through registered and supervised cannabis dispensaries. Although the state of California has moved towards decriminalizing marijuana and reducing sentences for inmates, the disproportion of Hispanic and Black Americans persists throughout the United States, portraying an institutional problem, a state cannot dismantle.
As mentioned, within the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (Proposition 64) there were codes and sections that declared what was permissible and illegal. What is written within the law is vital to understand but seeing how the law works amongst society is as important. When the act was set in motion, there were multiple regulations placed to control the cultivation, distribution, sales, and consumers. The primary agencies that oversee the cultivation, distribution, and sales of marijuana are the Bureau of Cannabis Control, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and the California Department of Public Health. The Bureau of Cannabis Control is responsible for licensing micro businesses, cannabis events, testing laboratories, and retailers. Moreover, the California Department of Food and Agriculture supervises the licensing and cultivation of marijuana. Lastly, the Department of Public Health is in charge of licensing and overseeing the authorized production of marijuana edibles. Given the organization’s authority to regulate the cultivation, sales, and distribution of marijuana in facilities and businesses. Law enforcement focuses on controlling the consumers; an illegal instance would be driving under the influence of marijuana. Highway patrol officers can give the driver a DUI that can range from a misdemeanor to a felony charge.
There have not been any court decisions in the state of California after the Adult Use of Marijuana Act passed on November 8, 2016. However, before the act, a widely recognized court case that was significant in the state was Gonzales v. Raich. The court case was initiated on November 29, 2004, and was finalized on June 6, 2005, asserting the power the federal government has over the state and how the War on Drugs ties in to the verdict. The situation arose in northern California when two civilians, Raich and Monson, were cultivating marijuana plants in their homes for medical use, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) had surveilled their homes and destroyed their plants. Raich and Monson claimed that they had the right to have marijuana plants for medical reasons as protected by the Compassionate Act of 1996, which passed in the state of California, permitting the cultivation and use of marijuana for medical purposes. However, the federal agents argued that under the Controlled Substance Act (1970), a federal law passed by Congress, the consumption and cultivation of marijuana is illegal. In order to challenge the Controlled Substance Act, Raich and Monson sued Alberto Gonzales, the U.S. attorney general. Although Raich and Monson lost in the district court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the Controlled Substances Act was unconstitutional as it was imposed in the state. Thereafter, the Gonzales v. Raich case was presented to the Supreme Court, where it questioned if Congress can control interstate commerce, can it also regulate the cultivation and consumption of marijuana in the state, given medicinal marijuana is legal in California? The Supreme Court ruled against Raich, in a 6-3 vote, asserting that the Controlled Substances Act is constitutional due to congress’ ability to control interstate commerce. In this situation, Congress can interfere with the cultivation of marijuana in the state as it can affect the interstate supply of illegal substances. In addition, there was fear of illegal transportation of the substance to other states, burdening Congress’ attempt to end the illegal interstate smuggling of marijuana. Despite Reich’s loss, this case was part of the foundation of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act as it helped join many California civilians and politicians for the legalization of marijuana in the state, embarking on a step against the racist movement, the War on Drugs.
According to the law’s revised document, “Comprehensive Adult Use of Marijuana Act-2016” section 3, titled “Purpose and Intent” includes how it can “Permit adults 21 years and older to use, possess, purchase and grow nonmedical marijuana within defined limits for use by adults 21 years and older as set forth in this act.” (Page 3). By allowing adults over the age of 21 to possess and use marijuana, crime rates and the disproportionate numbers of Latino/a and Black Americans incarcerated for marijuana-related charges should decrease. When placed in action, according to research data from the CANORML site, there have been reports of fewer people incriminated for cannabis-related charges. However, there is also data in the article, “Racial Disparities Increase as Marijuana Arrests Decline in California”, stating, “Blacks were 4.47 times more likely than whites to be arrested for a marijuana crime in California in 2019, vs. 4.05 times as often in 2018; for Latinx people, the arrest disparity vs. whites rose to 2.02 times in 2019 vs. 1.66 times in 2018.” (Ellen). Proving the unintended consequences where despite the decriminalization of marijuana, there are still more Latino/a and Black Americans being incriminated than White Americans, representing the persisting bias of the law in motion.
When reflecting on the law, it is important to reference the American sociologist and civil rights activist, W.E.B Du Bois (1868-1963) who wrote a widely recognized book titled, The Souls of Black Folk, Du Bois speaks on behalf of the African American community to convey how racism persists in America. Based on an excerpt from the book The Souls of Black Folk, Du Bois states, “ He simply wishes to make it possible for a man to be both a Negro and an American, without being cursed and spit upon by his fellows, without having the doors of Opportunity closed roughly in his face.“ (3). Referencing Du Bois and including a quote from his book is significant as the continuous institutional oppression and racism Black Americans face continues. The Adult Use of Marijuana Act in motion proves that there is institutional racism in the United States which makes it harder to oppose the War on Drugs which has increased the arrests of Black Americans.
Suggestions for reform would include preventing discriminatory stop-and-frisk practices and policies that are used by police officers to incriminate people of color. Although the Adult Use of Marijuana permits adults over the age of 21 to cultivate and consume marijuana there are still regulations in place that can incriminate the person. Moreover, the involvement of cities and counties to reduce or resentence marijuana-related charges to people who were incriminated before the law was implemented, section 3 of the “Purpose and Intent” in the “Comprehensive Adult Use of Marijuana Act-2016” includes how cities and counties have the capability to do so. Recently, there was an article published, “Southern California counties clear 1,000 cannabis convictions by July 1 deadline” which includes,” People of color figure to be hurt the most. Though minorities and whites have used weed at roughly the same rates over the years, Drug Policy Alliance data shows that non-whites have been much more likely to be arrested and prosecuted for marijuana-related crimes. And recent research shows those discriminatory patterns continue even after cannabis legalization.” (Staggs). Cities and counties in Southern California have pushed towards removing sentences of people convicted for marijuana charges before the law was passed as a method of decriminalizing marijuana and reducing the disproportionate amounts of Latino/a and Black Americans arrested for marijuana-related convictions.
References
“California Cities Drop Thousands of Marijuana Convictions.” The Christian Science Monitor,
The Christian Science Monitor, 2 Feb. 2018,
www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2018/0202/California-cities-drop-thousands-of-marijua
Na-convictions.
“California Marijuana Arrest and Prisoner Data.” CANORML, 19 July 2020,
www.canorml.org/judicial/california-arrest-and-prisoner-data/.
“California Proposition 64, Marijuana Legalization (2016).” Ballotpedia,
ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_64,_Marijuana_Legalization_(2016).
“Comprehensive Adult Use of Marijuana Act-2016 Proposition 64.”
doi:https://static.cdfa.ca.gov/MCCP/document/Comprehensive%20Adult%20Use%20of%20Marijuana%20Act.pdf.
“Marijuana Legalization in California: Rational Implementation of the Adult Use of Marijuana
Act (AUMA).” Taylor & Francis,
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02791072.2015.1132350.
“The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (Proposition 64):Frequently Asked Questions.”
doi:https://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/documents/AUMA_Prop%2064_Frequ
ently_Asked_Questions.pdf.
“Why Is Marijuana Illegal in the U.S.?” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica,
Inc., www.britannica.com/story/why-is-marijuana-illegal-in-the-us.
About, http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/About.aspx.
“California Cannabis Laws.” CANORML, 23 Sept. 2019,
www.canorml.org/california-laws/california-cannabis-laws/.
California, State of. “Cannabis Regulations.” Cannabis, cannabis.ca.gov/cannabis-regulations/.
California, State of. “Laws & Regulations
CDFA,www.cdfa.ca.gov/calcannabis/Regulations.html.
“Comprehensive Adult Use of Marijuana Act-2016 Proposition 64.”
doi:https://static.cdfa.ca.gov/MCCP/document/Comprehensive%20Adult%20Use%20of
%20Marijuana%20Act.pdf.
Department of Consumer Affairs, State of California. “Law.” BCC, http://www.bcc.ca.gov/law_regs/.
Du Bois, William. The Souls of Black Folk. Atlanta, GA., Feb 1, 1903.
Ellen. “Racial Arrest Disparities Increase as Marijuana Arrests Decline in California.”
CANORML, 18 Sept. 2020,
www.canorml.org/2019-felony-marijuana-arrests-in-california-lowest-since-1954-racial-a
rrest-disparities-increase/.
M., Dee. “DUI Of Marijuana – 10 Critical Things To Know After An Arrest.” Shouse Law
Group, 18 Oct. 2020, www.shouselaw.com/ca/dui/laws/marijuana-dui/.
Somin, Ilya. “Gonzales v. Raich; Federalism as a Casualty of the War on Drugs.” Cornell JL &
Pub. Pol’y 15 (2005): 507.
Staggs, Brooke. “Southern California Counties Clear 100,000 Cannabis Convictions by July 1
Deadline.” Orange County Register, Orange County Register, 3 July 2020,
www.ocregister.com/2020/07/03/southern-california-counties-clear-100000-cannabis-con
victions-by-july-1-deadline/.
Stevens. “GONZALES V. RAICH.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, 6
June 2005, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZO.html.
Tylers. “What Is the Age Limit of Medical Cannabis in California?” American Cannabis
Company, 2 Mar. 2020,
americancannabisconsulting.com/california-medial-cannabis-age-limit/.
foundations of law and society 