There are only minor changes between draft three and the final draft because draft three is already very close to complete. For the final draft, I prove read the entire paper out loud to hear my mistakes. Indeed, prove reading was very helpful and I was able to find several grammatical errors and awkward sentences. I also made some changes in my conclusion in which I opened with a concession of the problem and then moved into an explanation of why my proposals are the best potential solution despite its drawbacks. Thus far, the AP final draft shows a big improvement since the HCP by incorporating new writing techniques and use of multimodality. 

Rena Ren

Brendan Shapiro

Writing 39C

1 December 2015

State Monopoly and Education: Solutions to Marijuana Ads and Youth Access on Drugs

With the passage of Colorado Marijuana Legalization Amendment, or Amendment 64 in 2012 that removed prohibition of marijuana, the state inaugurated for-profit commercial marijuana industry that boosted the local economy. Despite severe health and social damages that marijuana can cause on youth, advertising agencies realizes the potential of the growing pot industry as they utilize cannabis ads to stack on their revenue stream. Many parents complain that unrestricted press of cannabis advertisements are too visible to children as they fear “abusive use of cannabis ads would increase the use of marijuana on nonmedical users and draw young people to drug addiction” (Ren 1). A year after Colorado’s legalization of marijuana, it became problematic when the state government restricted cannabis advertisements by imposing new law that prohibited cannabis ads in several media and publications including radio, TV, and teenage magazines with more than 70 percent of audiences under the age of 21 (Sullum). The law banned many magazines on store racks that published pot ads. Some publications such as High Times Magazine and Westword refused to comply as they argued that advertising by state-licensed pot shops “constitutes protected commercial speech because it addresses lawful activity…and is not deceptive, false, or misleading” (qtd. in Sullum). It is clear that the First Amendment protects commercial speech as long as it is true and lawful, but is selling marijuana a “lawful activity” as far as the federal courts are concerned? Although objections to Colorado’s restriction of commercial speech still remain unanswered by the courts, some experts have suggested alternatives to prevent young adults from nonmedical drug use. Rather than heavy regulation on cannabis advertising, marijuana-legal states can potentially reduce health and social risks by possibly imposing a government monopoly on marijuana, as well as enforcing better public education.

The major concern of the opponent of marijuana legalization is nonmedical use of marijuana among youth. In fact, Cannabis advertisement is one the major factor that contributes to increasing the potential adolescent drug users. A recent RAND Corporation study surveyed more than 8,000 Southern California middle school students. One of the authors of this study, RAND psychologist Elizabeth J. D’Amico, reports that “youth who reported seeing any ads for medical marijuana were twice as likely as peers who reported never seeing an ad to have used marijuana or report higher intentions to use the drug in the future.” Young adults who have tried marijuana are also potential users for other severe drugs such as cocaine and heroin. Studies show that “marijuana users at college are more likely than non-users to engage in heavy drinking, to use additional drugs, and to consume these substances in a ‘party’ environment that encourages high-risk consumption and often risk-taking behaviors” (Weiss and Wilks 64). Marijuana users not only risk their health, but also risk their social lives. According to Nicole Walden and Mitch Earleywine, two recognized researchers on cannabis-related problems, cannabis use is positively correlated to social problems including “getting into trouble at work, getting into fights, or losing friends” (3). Although marijuana is considered a modest drug, but the social and health consequences on young drug users is inevitable. As a matter of fact, drug ads especially puts teenagers into deadly risks.

However, American society has come to the point where prohibition on marijuana is impossible because the substance is turning to and necessity in Americans’ life. Some studies have proved that there are many nationwide legal drugs that are way more damaging than marijuana. According to a Columbia University study done in 2010, deaths caused by alcohol and tobacco outnumbers marijuana by far (Lopez). It is true that marijuana is not a healthy
substance, but we are closer to drugs that are much deadlier in our lives.

Figure 1 Statistic shows alcohol consumption causes the most traffic accident among other drugs. Source: Lopez, German. "President Obama Turns down Joint, Consumes More Dangerous Drug." Vox. Vox Media, Inc., 9 July 2014. Web. 27 Oct. 2015.

 

 

Some advocates of marijuana legalization such as Paul Armentano, the deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), justifies that “it's time to stop stigmatizing and criminalizing tens of millions of Americans for choosing to consume a substance that is safer than either tobacco or alcohol.” If death-causing drugs like tobacco and liquor are legal nationwide, why not marijuana? Armentano insists that prohibition on marijuana would nearly be impossible because American’s “use of cannabis is rising and has now surpassed the number of teens consuming tobacco.” Supporters point for evidence to the Prohibition of 1920s that “took away license to do business from the brewers, distillers, vintners, and the wholesale and retail sellers of alcoholic beverages” (“Why Prohibition?”). Instead of creating a healthier life standard by cutting down alcohol consumption, citizens protested, smugglings and abusive black market emerged, and overall crime rates increased. Since both legislators on alcohol and marijuana seek to prevent morbid drug use, its legalization and regulation on cannabis should consider lessons learned from alcohol regulations. Instead of prohibition on marijuana, “it's legalization, regulation and public education—coupled with the enforcement of age restrictions—that most effectively keeps mind-altering substances out of the hands of children,” states Armentano. Therefore, with lessons learned from the alcohol industry, as well as the enforcement of Armentano’s proposals, the influence of cannabis ads would eventually reduce.

As the legalization and availability of marijuana spreads in Colorado, the state imposed strict regulations on the advertising industry. Indeed, the negative influence of marijuana advertisements on adolescents is substantial, but government’s attempts to regulate cannabis ads run into barriers. Colorado’s marijuana regulation attempts to “mimic regulations in place that govern advertising of alcohol and tobacco,” but it was contested by publications with backing of the First Amendment (D’Amico). Even though regulation on cannabis ads in Colorado followed tobacco and liquors ads rules that prohibited these drug ads on publications with 70 percent of audiences under 21, it is still problematic because publications technically have the right to advertise under the First Amendment. We don’t see any dispute on alcohol and tobacco ads regulations becuase “most of the limits on alcohol and tobacco advertising have come from voluntary agreements and court settlements, not legislation,” said Jonathan Caulkins, the professor of Operations Research and Public Policy at the Heinz School of Carnegie Mellon University (62). Thus, the argument with advertisement regulations revolves on the protection of commercial speech. Ultimately, the issue rose controversy on how cannabis should be regulated to minimize adolescent drug users. Despite restrictions on cannabis ads, there is a need to revise prevention approaches on youth.

Solution 1: State Monopoly

The argument between commercial speech rights and advertising restrictions could be resolved by imposing a state monopoly on marijuana. This solution was suggested by Caulkins and his colleagues who proposed that the national government takes direct control over retails of marijuana. Caulkins states in his research that “if a state monopoly controlled supply, firms would have no incentive to spend their money promoting consumption of the government’s product” (62). The government could control cannabis advertisements and its distribution, as opposed to merely issuing regulations on cannabis ads. In this case, marijuana retailers will not be interested in advertising cannabis even if the First Amendment gives them the right to do so because the revenue of sales belongs to the government. Ultimately, there would be less marijuana users and fewer teens on drug risks. “To have the market for marijuana be totally controlled by a state agency that has a mandate to protect public health and safety -- basically, a system that would be run by the health department and not the revenue department -- that would really change the dynamics and incentives,” says one of the nation’s leading experts on post-Prohibition alcohol regulation, Alexander Wagenaar. However, if a state monopoly on marijuana exists, the government would only control the distribution of marijuana instead of its production. Thus, it is likely that marijuana producers of marijuana remain their incentives to advertise. Although the possibility of advertisement dispute would remain under a state monopoly, the ultimate goal to prevent young pot smokers is effective. The results of a state monopoly system could be seen in current alcohol industry.

Figure 1 In some states, you may need to visit one of these government controlled ABC liquor stores to find all types of beer, wine, and distilled spirits. Source: "America's Weirdest Government Monopoly." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 6 Sept. 2010. Web. 14 Nov. 2015.

Regulation of marijuana could possibly follow the path of alcohol industry in some states where alcohol distribution is directly controlled by the government. Ever since the end of Prohibition in 1934, some states, such as Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington and Virginia monopolized sales of some or all types of alcohol (Buntin). A government monopoly on liquor sales in ABC (Alchoholic Beverage Control) states can be seen as a strategic alternative to alcohol consumption control 75 years ago. Some Scandinavian countries have taken similar effort to cut down alcohol consumption and public health experts say it works. Indeed, alcohol consumption in ABC states is 16-20% less than decontrolled states, and accidents from drunk-driving are lower as well (“America's Weirdest Government Monopoly”). Consequently, if the government imposes a state monopoly system on marijuana, it can help keep prices artificially high, minimize exposure to market, and ultimately limit adolescent marijuana users and prevent health and social risks.

Solution 1: Drawbacks

However, there are notable consequences and opponents to this government controlled state monopoly. If the government sets high taxes on marijuana, it would induce black market production and this is probably extra-dangerous with the huge production capacity of existing illegal marijuana producers. It is certain that consumers would disregard high market prices and find alternative ways to obtain. However, if the government is responsible for both the production and distribution of marijuana in which a government monopoly occurs, the problem could be easily solved. According to Caulkins, “it would be easier to detect and suppress…any production outside of the identified government facilities would necessarily be illegal,” whereas, if it was a government monopoly that only controlled distribution, it might be difficult to determine a particular production site to be legal or illegal (63). Caulkins brings up a third major issue; in order to turn marijuana industry into a government controlled monopoly, it requires legalization of marijuana in the entire United States because “a US state cannot participate actively in cannabis distribution in the face of a continued national prohibition” (869). Although some states have already legalized or in the process of legalizing marijuana, abolishing “national prohibition” on the substance would be unimaginative in the near term. However, in the very long-term, there exists a slim possibility that once the United States abolish national prohibition of marijuana, a government monopoly will take over the marijuana industry.

Solution 2: Education

Today, as prohibitions on marijuana ease and sales of marijuana become more visible, it's important to think about how we need to educate to young people about the negative effects of marijuana. Within one of the first states to legalize marijuana, Colorado performed all three suggestions from Armentano – “legalization, regulation and public education.” Although regulation on cannabis ads faced obstacles, both Armentano and D’Amico insists to promote a better public education on marijuana. Simply relying on regulation is not enough to limit marijuana use among youth. Instead, the combination of “regulation and public education” will not only enforce marijuana laws, but also prevent adolescents to use marijuana even after viewing nonmedical marijuana advertisements. As an alternative to regulations on cannabis ads, D’Amico proposes to “better educate youth about how medical marijuana is used, while also emphasizing the negative effects that marijuana can have on the brain and performance.” As a matter of fact, advertisements typically only reveals only the good side of the product that attracts consumers. Many adolescents believe marijuana does little harm or even beneficial because of its medical purposes, therefore, they are more vulnerable to advertisements. The better knowledge one has on the dangers of the drug, the less likely he or she will be to engage in drug use.

Colorado not only takes the lead in marijuana legalization, but also takes the lead to educate its citizens on the substance by making cannabis information available to public and warning its harm. In 2014, the state launched the website colorado.gov/marijuana that provides a wide range of information on legalized cannabis from its health impacts to legal use. The website was created under the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), which is a state agency funded to provide education, public awareness and prevention messages for marijuana (U.S. CDPHE 6). The executive director and chief medical officer at the CDPHE, Dr. Larry Wolk, provokes "this website as a reliable resource for parents, consumers, tourists and others who want the facts about marijuana's health effects and the laws in Colorado" (qtd. in Kennedy). According to Wolk, his team has requested $3.7 million to advance its research to keep the website updated with recent educational materials (Kennedy). Started from January 2015, CDPHE has been holding a statewide “Good to Know” campaign that “educates the general public on its legal use, retailers on the importance of preventing youth access, high-risk populations, and the overconsumption of edibles” (U.S. CDPHE 8). While the effectiveness of the program is still under analysis, there are some discouraging predictions that such high-key educational campaign resembles anti-drug campaigns that failed in the past.

Solution 2: Drawbacks

            Colorado’s new approach comes after criticism on DARE’s (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) overwhelming efforts on preventing drug use that some found to be misleading. The DARE program spent millions of dollars on massive national campaign against drugs in schools. Through 1980s and 1990s, DARE was practiced in 75% of American schools at its peak.

Figure 1 Naval officers were put on duty to teach a DARE course. Source: "DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked." Priceonomics. 1 Oct. 2015. Web. 21 Nov. 2015.

Students were taught about the dangers of drugs and practiced saying no to drugs. It was not only popular among parents, but also politicians and bureaucrats who saw the DARE program as a solution to the problem of juvenile drug abuse ("DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked"). However, the program was not effective and some studies even claimed that “students were actually more likely to do drugs if they went through DARE” (“DARE”). Bill Hansen, one of the researchers of the DARE program, said the program had a “boomerang effect” on some students in which participation in DARE correlates to higher rates of drug use (“DARE”). The problem was “everyone believed that if you just told students how harmful these substances and behaviors were—they'd stay away from them," said Frank Pegueros, the current president and CEO of DARE. America. But instead, students became more interested in the substance. The history of DARE raises concerns on the fresh-launched “Good to Know” campaign by the CDPHE as they share similarities.

Figure 2 The Good to Know campaign that educates the general public about marijuana instead of preventing marijuana use. Source: "Colorado Spends $5.7 Million For Cannabis Education Ads." Medical Jane. 7 Jan. 2015. Web. 22 Nov. 2015.

Both CDPHE and DARE programs spent massive amount of money on educational campaigns, but what’s different with Colorado’s program is that it aims to educate and acknowledge the right way to use marijuana instead of preventing it. The state reports only 27% of Colorado residents knew it was illegal to smoke pot in public, and only about 23% knew that marijuana cannot be sold to patrons under 21 (Hughes). CDPHE’s “Good to Know” campaign seeks to educate the public about the legal use of the substance, while understanding its health impacts and its consequences. Compared to DARE, the CDPHE has better chance to succeed because it does not “demonize the drug,” reports Kristen Wyatt on the 7NEWS Denver. State Rep. Jonathan Singer, who has helped write many of the state's marijuana-legalization laws, defends the CDPHE program that it treats “marijuana like the drug it is, not the drug some fear it to be." When people are educated about how legalized cannabis are used, the substance is more likely to be used safely. We have to admit that educational programs are costly and dangerous, but it, indeed, is a soluble solution to settle worries on the bad influence on teens from pot ads.

While it is true that nonmedical marijuana could be used unsafely by teenagers and its consequences can be severe, it is difficult to avoid libertarians pushing to legalize a modest drug less harmful than tobacco and alcohol. In order to settle citizens’ and legislators’ worry on the impact of marijuana on youth while suppressing publications’ objection to restrictions on cannabis ads, both state monopoly and educational programs must be maintained. Although it may be impossible to impose a state monopoly on marijuana in the near term because it requires to abolish national prohibition on the pot industry, the system proves to be effective in consumption control through looking at current alcohol state monopolies. While marijuana legalization expands, educational programs such as Colorado’s “Good to Know” campaign and educational website allows marijuana consumers and retailers in marijuana-legal states to learn about its legal use and prevention to illegal use. In short-term, education programs are more likely to prevent minors getting attracted to marijuana ads. In the long-term, a state monopoly on marijuana would be more likely to prevent firms to advertise marijuana even if they have the right to do so. Both solutions will be able to solve disputes on cannabis ads which ultimately seeks to minimize adolescent pot smokers and maintain a healthy life standard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

"America's Weirdest Government Monopoly." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 6

Sept. 2010. Web. 14 Nov. 2015.

Armentano, Paul. "Marijuana Regulation Works and Prohibition Fails." US News.

U.S.News & World Report, 30 Oct. 2012. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.

Paul Armentano, the deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), is one of the most forging advocate for marijuana legalization in the United States. In his debate on US News, he argues that a national prohibition on marijuana is no longer effective but regulation and public education should be enforced because we are seeing increasing pot smokers in the US. He supports his argument by stating a study that proves the substance is actually less harmful than tobacco and alcohol. Armentano’s quotes appeared in both HCP and AP papers because his argument clearly states the worry of marijuana lealization and he suggests for a possible solution based on education.

Buntin, John. "What If States Just Sold Marijuana Themselves?" GOVERNING. Governing, 1

Nov. 2014. Web. 15 Nov. 2015.

Caulkins, Jonathan P., Beau Kilmer, Mark A. R. Kleiman, Robert J. MacCoun, Gregory

Midgette, Pat Oglesby, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula and Peter H. Reuter. Considering

Marijuana Legalization: Insights for Vermont and Other Jurisdictions (2015): 1-218.

RAND Corporation. RAND Corporation. Web. 14 Nov. 2015.

Caulkins and his colleagues designed a wide range of possible legislation on marijuana published for the RAND Corporation. This article reflects the most recent issue with Colorado’s legalization of a for-commercial marijuana market. On of the most useful section is on page 62-64 where he talks about how a state monopoly can solve the issue on restricting cannabis ads. The authors considered opinions from many other experts on marijuana legalization, including Paul Armentano, who is another useful source. The article also explains the effects and drawbacks of a state monopoly in details.

Caulkins, Jonathan P., Beau Kilmer, Robert J. Maccoun, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, and Peter

Reuter. "Design Considerations for Legalizing Cannabis: Lessons Inspired by Analysis of

California's Proposition 19." Addiction (2011): 865-71. Print.

D'Amico, Elizabeth J. "Adolescents Who View Medical Marijuana Advertising Are More Likely

to Use the Drug." RAND Corporation. RAND Corporation, 6 July 2015. Web. 3 Nov.

Elizabeth D'Amico is a senior behavioral scientist at the RAND Corporation and a licensed clinical psychologist. D’Amico reports on RAND Corportation that adolescents who have seen nonmedical marijuana ads are more likely to use the substance in the future than than others who have never seen such ads. She proposed for a better education on students in order to prevent young drug users even after seeing advertisements. This source was very useful because it not only proves the problem of cannabis ads, but also suggested a possible solution.

"DARE: The Anti-Drug Program That Never Actually Worked." Priceonomics. 1 Oct. 2015.

Web. 21 Nov. 2015. <http://priceonomics.com/dare-the-anti-drug-program-that-never-

actually/>.

Evans, David G. "Marijuana Legalization's Costs Outweigh Its Benefits." US News. US

News & World Report LP., 30 Oct. 2012. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.

Hughes, Trevor. "Colorado Says It's 'Good to Know' about Marijuana." USA Today. Gannett, 5

Jan. 2015. Web. 21 Nov. 2015.

Kennedy, Bruce. "Colorado Seeks to Educate Public about Marijuana." CBSNews. CBS

Interactive, 24 Mar. 2014. Web. 15 Nov. 2015.

Lopez, German. "President Obama Turns down Joint, Consumes More Dangerous Drug." Vox.

Vox Media, Inc., 9 July 2014. Web. 27 Oct. 2015.

Madrak, Jeff. "Building Big Marijuana: Marketing and Advertising for the Brave." Drug Law

and Policy. Wordpress, 30 Mar. 2015. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.

Sullum, Jacob. "Does The First Amendment Protect Marijuana Ads?" Forbes. Forbes Magazine,

19 Feb. 2014. Web. 6 Oct. 2015.

This op-ed by Jacob Sullum falls right on my topic concerning the issue of advertising marijuana. The audience intends to be citizens of marijuana-legal states. Sullum is the author of two drug defense books which are Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use and For Your Own Good: The Anti-Smoking Crusade and the Tyranny of Public Health. Therefore, he holds authority in his op-ed on Forbes. The purpose of this editorial not only shares his opinion on the regulations of cannabis ads, but also conveys information about what the first amendment missed. He supported his opinion that restrictions on marijuana ads is difficult to guarantee through federal court by throwing several previous supreme court cases in his editorial. Although some of these cases are outdated, it is a fundamental evidence towards this 2014 editorial which reflects recent controversial. The source offers useful information on the current controversy of regulations on cannabis ads in Colorado.

Trans-High Corporation, D.B.A. High Times Magazine, and Denver Westword, Llc v. The State

of Colorado.1-11. USDC Colorado. 2014. Print.

U.S. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Prevention Services Division.

Retail Marijuana Education Program: Legislative Report. CDPHE, 1 Mar. 2015. Web.

21 Nov. 2015. <https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/RMJ1_RMEP-

Legislative-Report-March-1-2015.pdf>.

Walden, Nicole, and Mitch Earleywine. "How High: Quantity as a Predictor of Cannabis-related

Problems." Harm Reduction Journal Harm Reduct J (2008): 20. Print.

This scholarly research journal on how the quantity used of marijuana causes social problems is relevant to my topic because it supports my reasoning on why cannabis ads should be restricted. The audience for this source is most likely for experts working on psychology and biology fields. Accordingly, the authors have authority on this research journal because Nicole Walden is an expert in psychology and Mitch Earleywine is an expert in biomed. The purpose of their research is to convince experts and intellects that the use of marijuana is positively correlated to social problems. The evidences that they use include opinions from other experts and survey from cannabis users. This is also a very recent research published in 2008. The source only tells the effects of marijuana, not much related to the main topic of this paper.

Waytt, Kristen. "New Marijuana Education Campaign in Colorado Tries 'neighborly' Approach."

7NEWS Denver. Scripps TV Station Group, 5 Jan. 2015. Web. 21 Nov. 2015.

Weiss, Karen G., and Lisa M. Dilks. "Marijuana, Gender, and Health-Related Harms:

Disentangling Marijuana's Contribution to Risk in a College “Party” Context."

Sociological Spectrum (2015): 254-70. Print.

"Why Prohibition?" Temperance & Prohibition. The Ohio State University. Web. 18 Oct.