So, this is a long status. For anyone interested, here is my final paper from Urban Anthropology that concerns the implementation of legal marijuana in the city of Seattle. I found some interesting things and thought I would share them. Enjoy. Marijuana Legalization in Seattle Last November, Washington voters passed I-502, which legalized marijuana for personal use. For the city of Seattle, this means changes on many levels. For the city government, it will bring in new tax revenue, while reducing law enforcement and prison costs. Perhaps most affected by the change is the underground society of marijuana smokers and growers that has existed in Seattle for decades. With the legalization of marijuana, the underground is coming to the forefront. Rather than start from scratch, the culture of marijuana already in place is beginning to legitimize as growers work more through legal channels. Though the exact rules for legal distribution have yet to be decided, this is a major change for both users and growers of marijuana. A relaxed attitude towards marijuana has worked in European cities such as Amsterdam, Bremen, and Prague. How Seattle handles the change will act as an example to the rest of the United States. The fact that Washington is one of the first two states to legalize marijuana comes as little surprise to many. Since 2003, the Seattle Police Department (SPD) has considered marijuana possession as its lowest priority (Spangenthal-Lee, 2012). The relaxed attitude of the SPD towards marijuana has allowed for Seattle’s growth of what has become the largest “Hemp Fest” in the country. Starting in 1991, one weekend each August marijuana users and advocates of marijuana use gather in a Seattle park to enjoy a weekend of celebrating marijuana. When it comes to medical marijuana, Washington legalized it back in 1998 under I-692. That same year, Oregon and Alaska also legalized medical marijuana, all following California’s lead, which was the first state with legal medical marijuana in 1996 (ncsl.org/issues-research/health/state-medical-marijuana-laws.aspx). As the West Coast states have demonstrated a more relaxed attitude towards marijuana in general, it makes sense socially that Washington voters have taken a bold step in legalizing recreational use. However, as this is new territory in the law, I-502 raises many questions and concerns. One concerned group of individuals is the medical marijuana industry and medical marijuana patients. As medicine may not be taxed, regulation of the growing and cultivation of medical marijuana has not been as strict as the new system planned for recreational marijuana. Patients may grow plants and dispensaries sometimes get product from illegal sources. The regulation is on the front of the business; i.e. age restrictions, medical licensing, building codes, rather than the back end of the business; i.e. sources of product. This works much the same as Amsterdam, which will be discussed later in this paper. I-502 says nothing on medical marijuana and the SPD and the Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) both state that I-502 will not effect medical marijuana (WSLCB, 2013). However, patients and growers show concern that the system will not be allowed to continue as it has. With growers and preparers of marijuana now needing a license to do so legally, some fear a crackdown on illegal growing operations that have been tolerated as they supply medical marijuana. Also, because of the tax issue, the price of medical marijuana will likely remain significantly lower than recreational marijuana. This price difference could cause a misuse of the system. Most likely, the licensing of medical users will become stricter to prevent this. The WSLCB has been put in charge of making the rules for turning I-502 into a reality. Though many details still need to be ironed out, a solid plan is forming. The WSLCB has until December 1, 2013 to have the rules of the new system set in stone (WSLCB, 2013). The way the system is planned to work, many from the illegal and underground side of marijuana production and sale will now have a chance to legitimize themselves. The WSLCB will issue three separate licenses under the new system for legal marijuana, producers, processers, and retailers (WSLCB, 2013). Though an individual may have both a producer and processer’s license, a retail license is not allowed in conjunction with the other two (WSLCB, 2013). Licensing registration will be open for one month starting on September 16, 2013. Anyone may apply for any of the three licenses provided that they have a relatively clean criminal record, i.e. no felony charges (WSLCB, 2013). The WSLCB has put no limit on the number of producer and processor licenses, though the number of retailers will be limited, with a lottery system to award licenses should too many apply (WSLCB, 2013). The rules on where a retail outlet is located, age restrictions, and sale of products is similar to the medical dispensaries. A marijuana retailer may not be located near children; i.e. schools, parks, libraries, sell only to those over the age of 21, and sell only marijuana products (WSLCB, 2013). For the growing of marijuana, all plants will be tagged and monitored on a “seed to sale” basis (Camden, 2013). This is to prevent marijuana from Washington getting to other states. Additionally, the WSLCB is making rules for organic methods on the growing process to assure public safety (Camden, 2013). Though the exact numbers are not known, the taxes from marijuana sales are expected to bring in anywhere from 0 to 2 billion dollars in the next five years (WSLCB, 2013). Besides the tax dollars, the part of the law making driving while on marijuana a DUI will also bring in new revenue to the government. For the SPD, the clarification of the law is a good thing. The grey area in which marijuana has been for the last decade has left officers at a loss as what to do about marijuana (Spangenthal-Lee, 2012). Now, except for federal law, the SPD is clear on how to handle marijuana. For instance, public smoking of marijuana now holds the same penalty as drinking in public, a minor ticket (Spangenthal-Lee, 2012). There is speculation that even this will come with a relaxed attitude from the SPD. Much the same way as police turn a blind eye to a brown bag around a beer, discreet ways of smoking may also find a blind eye turned towards them. One effect that will take some time is in the reduction of court costs for marijuana offenses and prison costs for housing marijuana offenders. Nationally, 750,000 people were arrested for marijuana offenses in 2011, according to the FBI (Ferner, 2012). This accounts for almost half of the drug arrests. Taxpayers are spending between one and a half to three billion dollars a year to pay the costs of marijuana arrests and prosecutions, not to mention prison costs for those imprisoned (Ferner, 2012). If the prohibition of marijuana was ended nationally, the government could save an estimated 13.7 billion dollars annually (Ferner, 2012). If Washington and Colorado show that money can be made by the government rather than spent on marijuana, maybe the rest of the country will follow suit. The problem of marijuana remaining illegal federally may cause problems for the plans of the WSLCB. For one thing, no one knows if federal agencies will step in and make federal prosecutions when the industry really starts going in 2014. Another problem is for the SPD. Officers swear not only to uphold city and state laws, but federal laws as well (Spangenthal-Lee, 2012). The new laws cause a discrepancy in this. For growers, preparers, and retailers there is the problem of banking. As most banks are protected and run under a federal system, there has already been a problem with medical marijuana growers and retailers in maintaining bank accounts (Camden, 2013). For the state and city governments, there is a problem in federal banking law that states the federal government may seize funds from drug money in a federal account. This means that technically the federal government could seize taxes from the sale of recreational and medical marijuana sales (Camden, 2013). Only time will show the reaction of the federal government in the matter. Another way the city will generate new income is in marijuana tourism. Already, the Seattle annual Hemp Fest draws thousands of people from all over the country for one weekend of allowed marijuana use. With marijuana now legal for use the whole year round, there are expected to be a greater number of marijuana tourists to the city, just for the thrill of legally buying marijuana (Jacobs, 2012). I-502 makes no stipulation against out of state people purchasing marijuana so long as they use it while in Washington. However, there is the problem of smoking marijuana in public. As tourists may not smoke in hotel rooms and may not smoke in retail shops, they must smoke in public, which is not allowed. This is a catch-22 for out of state visitors. As of yet, the laws provide that they can purchase marijuana, which must be used in Washington, yet there is nowhere for them to legally smoke. As a solution to this dilemma, Seattle should look at Amsterdam, which has been a beacon of marijuana tourism for around three decades. Though officially marijuana is not legal in Amsterdam, the government has maintained a policy of tolerance towards the sale and use of marijuana since the 1970s (Van der Veen, 2009). The coffee shop system in Amsterdam works much like the medical marijuana dispensaries in Seattle. While there are rules in place on the sale of marijuana such as how much marijuana and hashish a shop may carry, age restrictions, and fire codes, there are no rules about where the product comes from (Van der Veen, 2009). Because of the official status of illegality, there is not regulation on the “back door” of the coffee shops (Van der Veen, 2009). Even so, the government collects a great deal of taxes from the coffee shops and gains a great deal of tourism from the relaxed attitude towards marijuana. In fact, most of the coffee shops in Amsterdam are in the center of the city catering towards mainly tourists (Van der Veen, 2009). Other cities in Europe have followed Amsterdam’s example of tolerance towards marijuana such as Prague, Bremen, and Berlin. In these cities, the sale of marijuana is not regulated as it is in Amsterdam, but the government and police policy is to turn a blind eye towards marijuana use. An interesting thing about tolerance is that it actually may lessen the amount of marijuana smokers. In a 2002 study of marijuana users in Amsterdam, Bremen, and San Francisco, researchers found that stricter attitudes towards marijuana use increased the number of heavy users of marijuana (Borchers-Tempel & Kolte, 2002). A potential reason for this is the number of users that start smoking marijuana because of the “rebel” attitude associated with its use in countries with stricter marijuana laws and attitudes (Borchers-Tempel & Kolte, 2002). This is similar to the lower amount of excess drinking in young people in countries with a lower drinking age. Because drinking is not as taboo, there is not the rebellious desire to abuse it. The same goes for marijuana. When it is more commonplace, less people abuse it. Perhaps this will be the case for Seattle and Denver in a decade’s time. According to Urban Ecology theory, when the cultural need for something is great enough in a city, the city will provide a means for it to occur (Turley, 2005). This is the case in the city of Seattle and marijuana use. The city and the state have recognized that the culture of marijuana is a highly profitable, steady business that is not going to disappear. The size of the culture, as evidenced by the annual Hemp Fest, has grown too large to ignore or persecute any more. The city has made the smart move and adapted to work with the culture of marijuana rather than against it. This may not work in all places. It all depends on the citizens of a particular city. Seattle is a city full of citizens open to the idea of legal marijuana, so it will most likely work out there. Much in the way that New Orleans allows greater freedom in public drinking than other places or Las Vegas tolerates gambling on a scale unseen in other cities, Seattle is entering a new age as the city for legal marijuana. If the changes work here, maybe soon other cities will follow suit. References Borchers-Tempel, S., & Kolte, B. (2002). Cannabis consumption in Amsterdam, Bremen and San Francisco: A three-city comparison of long-term cannabis consumption. [Electronic version] Journal of Drug Issues, 32(2), pp. 395-412. Retrieved from search.proquest/docview/208840252?accountid=32521 Camden, J. (2013, Jul 28). Washington faces marijuana legalization roadblocks [Electronic version]. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Retrieved from search.proquest/docview/1412907017?accountid=32521 Ferner, M. (2012). One marijuana arrest occurs every 42 seconds in U.S.: FBI report [Electronic version]. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from huffingtonpost/2012/10/29/one-marijuana-arrest-occu_n_2041236.html Jacobs, D. L. (2012). Postcard from Seattle: New clouds hang over the city as pot becomes legal. Forbes.Com, 5. Turley, A. (2005). Urban Culture: Exploring Cities and Cultures. New Jersey, Prentice Hall Spangenthal-Lee, J. (2012). Marijwhatnow? A guide to legal marijuana use in Seattle [Electronic version]. Retrieved from spdblotter.seattle.gov/2012/11/09/marijwhatnow-a-guide-to-legal-marijuana-use-in-seattle/ Washington State Liquor Control Board (2013). FAQs on I-502. Retrieved from lcb.wa.gov/marijuana/faqs_i-502 Van der Veen, H. T. (2009). Regulation in spite of prohibition: The control of cannabis distribution in Amsterdam [Electronic version]. Cultural Critique 71(1), pp. 129-147. Retrieved from Project MUSE database.
Posted on: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 17:44:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015