Reason Foundation

NJ Legislature Exploring Decriminalizing Marijuana

Posted on May 21, 2012, 11:37am | Harris Kenny

Today the New Jersey Assembly Judiciary Committee is considering Assembly Bill Number 1465 (A1465), which would most notably decriminalize possession of 15 grams or less of marijuana, and impose a new range of civil penalties instead. Roseanne Scott, state director for the Drug Policy Alliance, told The Star-Ledger, "(this) the furthest a bill to decriminalize marijuana has ever gotten in the New Jersey Legislature." Specifically, the bill statement reads:

This bill would decriminalize possession of 15 grams or less of marijuana. A person who is found to possess 15 grams or less of marijuana would be subject to a $150 fine for a first violation, a $200 fine for a second violation, and a $500 fine for a third or subsequent violation…

In addition, any person who is 21 years of age or older who commits a third or subsequent violation would be referred to a drug education program approved by the Division of Mental Health and Addition Services in the Department of Human Services. A person who is less than 21 years of age at the time of the violation shall be referred to an approved drug education program following any violation. The person would be responsible for paying any costs associated with his participation in the program, consistent with his ability to pay. If the violation is committed by a person under the age of 18, the person would be referred to the Family Part of the Chancery Division of the Superior Court for an appropriate disposition.

A person who possesses drug paraphernalia for the personal use of 15 grams or less of marijuana would no longer have committed a criminal violation but would be subject to a $100 civil penalty.

Additionally, this bill would establish that it is no longer a disorderly persons offense to be under the influence of marijuana or to fail to voluntarily deliver 15 grams or less of marijuana to the nearest law enforcement officer. This bill would also eliminate the requirement that a person who operates a motor vehicle while in possession of 15 grams or less of marijuana must pay a $50 fine and forfeit the right to operate a motor vehicle for a period of two years.

The Commissioner of Human Services would adopt any rules and regulations necessary to effectuate the purposes of section 5 of this bill. This bill would not apply to persons who are in compliance with the “New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act,” N.J.S.A.24:6I-1 et al.

A1465 will likely benefit from recent momentum on drug policy reform, and enjoys widespread support in its own right. For example, New Jersey policymakers recently approved medical marijuana for the first time.  A1465 was first introduced by Assemblymen Reed Gusciora (D-Mercer) and has bipartisan support from 15 Democrats and three Republicans. And last week The Star-Ledger editorial board weighed in on A1465 bluntly, concluding:

Treat pot the same way we do alcohol, with education and treatment. Not by calling the cops. What didn’t work for bootleggers won’t stop the stoners.

Despite the aforementioned support, A1465 faces an uncertain future. It’s not clear whether the bill will make it out of committee, let alone out of the legislature. And while Governor Chris Christie has signaled interest in criminal sentencing reform, his office has not publicly commented on this particular bill.

Drug policy and criminal sentencing reform continue to gain momentum in New Jersey, making A1465 a bill to watch.

States Coalescing Around Petitioning DEA to Reschedule Marijuana

Posted on December 8, 2011, 5:10pm | Harris Kenny

The Colorado Independent reports today that Colorado is joining Rhode Island and Washington State in “(petitioning) the federal government to change the schedule of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act, a move they claim will move the conflict between federal drug laws and state laws that allow the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries. Colorado will file its own request before the end of the year.”

Marijuana (also known as cannabis) is currently a schedule I controlled substance in the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) regulations, 21 C.F.R. Section 1308.11. According to the DEA, this scheduling designation means:

(Schedule 1 substances) have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Drugs listed in schedule I have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and, therefore, may not be prescribed, administered, or dispensed for medical use. In contrast, drugs listed in schedules II-V have some accepted medical use and may be prescribed, administered, or dispensed for medical use.

Rhode Island and Washington State submitted their petitions several weeks ago, with support from their respective governors (Lincoln Chaffee and Christine Gregoire). Each state has a strong history of leading in this policy area.

• Rhode Island legalized medical marijuana in 2006 through the passage of The Edward O. Hawkins and Thomas C. Slater Medical Marijuana Act, which was later amended by Senate Bill (SB) 07-791 and SB 09-185.
• Washington State legalized medical marijuana in 1998 through voter approval of Initiative 692, which was later amended by SB 07-6032, SB 10-5798, and SB 11-5073.

Meanwhile, Colorado legalized medical marijuana in 2000 through voter approval of Amendment 20, which was later amended by SB 10-109, House Bill (HB) 10-1284 and HB 11-1043. Colorado was essentially dragged into joining the other states by complying with a two-year old state law (HB 10-1284) that requires:

In recognition of the potential medical value of medical marijuana, (the Department of Revenue) make a request by January 1, 2012 to the federal Drug Enforcement Administration to consider rescheduling, for pharmaceutical purposes, medical marijuana from a schedule I controlled substance to a schedule II controlled substance.

Unlike in Rhode Island or Washington State, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper will not sign the petition. Hickenlooper is instead opting to have the Department of Revenue submit the petition.

While three states have coalesced around this issue so far, more states are expected to join since 16 states (including the District of Columbia) have now passed medical marijuana laws. In recent weeks Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie have made public statements essentially supporting a re-evaluation of the federal government's so-called "War on Drugs."

Changes in state law could have a dramatic impact on law enforcement and correctional policy across the country. States are not required to enforce federal law, so they can get around DEA scheduling, however the specter of federal enforcement haunts medical marijuana patients, producers, and providers. According to the latest U.S. Sentencing Commission data, drug offenses are the second largest category of federal convictions with 26% of those offenders being convicted for marijuana-related offenses. With marijuana legalization ballot measures anticipated in (at least) California and Colorado in the upcoming election, this will likely be a high-profile issue in 2012.

Are Sin Taxes on Marijuana a Price Worth Paying for Reform?

Posted on October 13, 2010, 9:00am | David Godow

Advocates of Proposition 19, the pending California referendum that would legalize the small-scale production and use of marijuana, have made new consumption taxes on cannabis a major selling point for their measure. Proponents claim that tax measures would bring in $1.4 billion for local governments and that marijuana use would be safer under a regime of taxation than prohibition.

Rosy revenue numbers and a promise to remedy social ills are always trotted out to justify new sin taxes; these arguments have been fitted to alcohol, cigarettes, and other unhealthy or otherwise unpopular products for years. Fiscal conservatives like myself counter that sin taxes are regressive, not reliable revenue generators, and fundamentally a bad tax policy tool.

Still, let's be clear that the drawbacks of a potential marijuana tax shouldn't be an impediment to legalization. Removing the legal barriers to responsible marijuana use would be a watershed moment in California and U.S. drug policy, and if new sin taxes are the price for that, that price is certainly worth paying. Still, in the long run, policymakers should remember that a sin tax on cannabis will hurt the poor, hurt the sick and provide little relief for California's perennial budget troubles. 

Much ado has been made about the revenue potential of new levies on marijuana, but sin taxes are notorious for failing to meet fiscal expectations. This problem is magnified in the case of cannabis, because no one knows what the equilibrium price or demand of pot will be after decriminalization. Naturally, California tax administrators have every incentive to highball their guesses. Still, a sobering RAND Corporation study suggested price could drop from $375 per ounce to as low as $38, cutting $400 million in potential sales tax accruals from state $1.4 billion revenue estimate.

Revenue issues aside, the debate has unfortunately glossed over the equally compelling reasons that sin taxes are regressive and unfair. Indeed, one anti-tax argument should be of special interest to reformers that seek to help the poor and helpless: sin taxes almost always have a regressive incidence that draws on the most vulnerable segments of society to pay for general government services.

No estimates of the effects of a marijuana tax address its potential regressivity; lawmakers need to be asking about this. If the poor spend a higher proportion of their income on cannabis than the rich, as is the case with tobacco, soda and almost all other "sinful" products, much of a cannabis tax's revenue would come out of the pockets of California's least well off citizens. Disturbingly, this means that the current drug prohibition regime, responsible for putting so many poor people in jail, may well be replaced by a system that will continue to disproportionately target them.

We've already seen examples of how marijuana taxes can be used to target narrow, vulnerable segments of the population. Take the enthusiasm for taxing medical marijuana. As drug reform pioneer J. Craig Canada has pointed out, even pro-marijuana legalization organizations have advocated these discriminatory levies on medicine, which further inflate the spiraling medical costs of seriously ill people. This, of course, is a strategic move meant to legitimize marijuana use: if government taxes a good, it also tacitly places that good, and users of it, under the aegis of the law. Nonetheless, there's no getting around the fact that the burden of these taxes falls squarely on the sick and vulnerable, who will shell out more for medicine they desperately need.

It makes sense why marijuana advocates push the tax argument. New tax revenue serves as a powerful draw for legislators concerned about spiraling deficits or worried about being seen as "soft on crime." Moreover, the likelihood of new taxes on marijuana won't and shouldn't inhibit the march towards legalization; it is certainly better to have taxed, legal marijuana than remain with the status quo. Still, we should continue to strive for a future in which Californians can legally, safely, and cheaply use cannabis without the regressive and unfair burden of government sin taxes.

Marijuana Arrests Fall in Denver After Ballot Initiative

Posted on February 10, 2009, 10:00am | Adrian Moore

Reason magazine's Jacob Sullum notes that "prosecutions of adults for possessing an ounce or less of marijuana dropped by a fifth in Denver last year, following the passage of a November 2007 ballot initiative that instructed city officials to make such cases their "lowest law enforcement priority."