1-Describe and critically evaluate the justification and evidence for specific crime policies.
2-Articulate a coherent and persuasive argument for various crime and public policy strategies based on empirical research.

*Find a law that is currently in existence and argue why the law should be eliminated. Your assignment should include:

1- An introduction describing the existing law. What problem was this law intended to address? Why was this law created? Which goal(s) of crime control (deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, rehabilitation) is reflected in this law? Provide any relevant history regarding this law.
2- At least three reasons the law should be eliminated (each reason should be its own paragraph) which are supported by outside research.
3- A paragraph addressing “the other” perspective. Are there any benefits associated with this law? Your argument will be strengthened by acknowledging that there may be valid opposing arguments.
4- A conclusion paragraph summarizing your argument as to why the law should be eliminated.
5- Your assignment should include a minimum of 5 research citations. The textbook and Wikipedia (c) do not count as research sources. Google Scholar is a good place to start your research.

USA Drug Policy: Marijuana Possession Law

Name of the student

ANSWER

USA Drug Policy: Marijuana Possession Law

Introduction

The war on drugs in the U.S.A. has been described as a failure, and counterproductive as drug-related crimes, diseases, and overdose cases have not been reduced rather are on the rise. Marijuana is one of the drugs that the federal government and states have fought hard to criminalize and develop laws. A law in this case that should be eliminated is Title 21, Section 811 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), especially Part B and D, found under the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 that allows the designated agencies to classify drugs into Schedules (usdoj.gov, 2020). Under this law, marijuana is categorized as a controlled substance in Schedule 1, meaning it is of immense potential abuse, lacks medical value, and cannot, in any case, be prescribed safely. It is categorized alongside heroin, cocaine, and magic mushrooms. The existence of this law is to deter, prevent, and incapacitate any growing, marketing, distribution, and possession of marijuana. It provides for extreme penalties for each situation, which forms part of why it should be eliminated.

Reasons for Elimination

Primarily, the law on Scheduling of marijuana in the first rank should be eliminated as it has formed a basis for criminalization and mass incarceration of even innocent people. Opponents of this drug policy argue for the decriminalization of marijuana, which is plausible, as it will stop the unjust consequences of sending people to prison under unjust laws. For instance, according to this law, it is unlawful to lease or rent a property that supports the production, storage, and distribution of controlled substances. This is an aspect that should be maintained; however, what if a property owner lacks knowledge of these activities among one of his tenants? Such property owners, even without any knowledge, are automatically displayed as directly involved in the marijuana industry, risking criminal fines, and forfeit of their assets (Lopez, 2014). Through the scheduling, criminalization of marijuana has increased as it becomes morally integrated. According to a moralist perspective, drug users are seen as sinful and morally faulty. Hence, the law misguides law enforcement actions as even though a culprit was wrongfully accused or had minor possession, or in the case of the property owners, criminalization takes place. Moreover, the law treats marijuana use and addiction as a criminal offense, thus, criminalizing it instead of treating it as a treatable disease and focus on rehabilitation and treatment.

This law has provided for the prevalence of inequalities, racial biases, and racial discrimination in the drug war. The law is misguided and inconclusive, resulting in criminalization and cultural punishment among marginalized and racialized groups in America, especially people of color. The criminalization and criminal justice efforts misguided by this law have resulted in discriminatory policies highly targeting black communities hence immensely producing unequal outcomes among racial and marginalized groups. Not all U.S.A. groups are affected by this law, as blacks and Hispanics are overrepresented in drug-related criminalization and incarcerations. The black community makes up at least 12% of the entire population; however, 62% represent drug offenders in prisons, with black men being imprisoned 13 times more than white men are (Coyne & Hall, 2017). Another study on marijuana conducted in Virginia showed that even though both black and white marijuana users used it at similar rates, black arrest doubled and increased by 44% compared to those made on white marijuana users.

The law provides for stringent penalties among marijuana users even though cases are simple, which has increased violent crime rates instead of reducing it as intended. Marijuana decriminalization does not mean legalizing, as issues such as drug trafficking and dealing should remain categorized as criminal activities. The vindictive laws and penalties outlined in the law make marijuana dealers respond with advanced techniques (Thompson, 2014). Illegalizing marijuana forms channels where drug users resolve conflicts personally; however, when decriminalized or legalized like in some states, drug-related conflicts are sold using legitimate and formal channels. However, when illegal, users never turn to the police or legitimate channels to solve conflicts. They use individual violent means such as killing, organized crime, and cartels instead of peaceful means. The law has provided an arena of fear from approaching peaceful and legitimate conflict resolution means, thus increasing violent crime in fear of the stringent penalties.

Other Perspective

Despite establishing its failures, the identified law possesses beneficial aspects worth acknowledging, including highly controlling the production, sale, and consumption of controlled substances such as marijuana. Through the C.S.A. and scheduling of controlled substances such as marijuana, partnerships, and agencies such as D.E.A., BNDD, and H.H.S. have been formed to facilitate, investigate, and solicit evidence-based prevention, treatment, and incapacitation policies and mitigation strategies. Through scheduling conducted through scientific and medical evaluation, preventive, rehabilitative, and treatment policies and strategies have been developed and integrated into the country’s budget to oversee its implementation (Sacco, 2014). This law, since its enactment, has targeted cartel and drug organizations such as marijuana industry to disrupt and dismantle illicit trafficking seen through the increased federal and state prosecutions, increased drug seizures by the D.E.A., and arrests made, reflecting changes and increment in the enforcement trends.

Conclusion 

Title 21, Section 811 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), especially Part B and D, should be eliminated. It has enabled the prevalent decriminalization of marijuana, resulting in mass incarceration and increased racial differences and biases in the enforcement efforts, especially among Blacks and Hispanics. Moreover, the law has contributed to the increased drug-related violent crime rates witnessed today instead of minimizing them as mandated.

References

Coyne, C. J., & Hall, A. R. (2017). Four Decades and Counting: The Continued Failure of the War on Drugs. CATO Institute: Policy Analysis, No. 811.

Lopez, G. (2014, July 9). The case for decriminalizing heroin, cocaine, and all other drugs. Retrieved from Vox: https://www.vox.com/2014/7/14/5889293/war-on-drugs-case-against-decriminalization-cocaine-heroin/in/5653520

Sacco, L. N. (2014). Drug Enforcement in the United States: History, Policy, and Trends . https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43749.pdf: Congressional Research Service .

Thompson, G. (2014). Slowly Learning the Hard Way: U.S. America’s War on Drugs And Implications for Mexico. Norteamérica, Revista Académica Del CISAN-UNAM, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.20999/nam.2014.b003.

usdoj.gov. (2020). Title 21 United States Code (USC) Controlled Substances Act. Retrieved from Diversion Control Division: https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/