Rena Ren
Brendan Shapiro
Writing 39C
24 November 2015
AP Draft Two
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 that stack on their revenue stream. Many parents complain that unrestricted press of cannabis advertisements are too visible to children and 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 attempted to restrict cannabis advertising by prohibiting magazines that published cannabis ads on store racks. In addition, Colorado imposed a law that banned 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). Many publications such as High Times Magazine 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 enforcing better education as well as possibly imposing a government monopoly on marijuana.
The major concern of legalization opponents is nonmedical use of marijuana among minors. 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). 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, the American society has come to the point where prohibition on marijuana is impossible because the substance is turning to and necessity in Americans’ life. Many studies have proved tobacco and alcohol are way more damaging than marijuana. Based on a Columbia University research 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 substances that are much
deadlier in our lives.
|
Figure 1 Statistic shows alcohol consumption causes the most traffic accident among other drugs.
|
Some advocate of legalization like Paul Armentano, the deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), justifies the intention to legalize marijuana 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 tobacco and liquor are legal, so should marijuana. Armentano realizes that prohibition on marijuana would be nearly impossible because the “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;” citizens protested, smugglings, and violent black market emerged (“Why Prohibition?”). Instead of creating a healthier life standard by cutting down alcohol consumption, crime rates increased. The legalization and regulation on cannabis ads should, indeed, consider lessons learned from alcohol regulations. Instead of prohibition, “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. Within one of the first states to legalize marijuana, Colorado performed all three suggestions – legalization, regulation and public education.
As the legalization and availability of marijuana spreads, the study serves to raise questions about the need to regulate cannabis ads. 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, 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.” Indeed, the negative influence of marijuana advertisements on adolescents is substantial, but government’s attempts to regulate cannabis ads run into barriers. When Colorado imposed restrictions on cannabis advertisements, it was challenged by publications with the First Amendment implemented in the US constitution. The issue rose controversy on how cannabis should be regulated to minimize adolescent drug users. D’Amico brought up that marijuana regulation could “mimic regulations in place that govern advertising of alcohol and tobacco,” but relying on regulations on advertising does not seem to be effective. Considering the High Times Magazine case, even though regulation on cannabis ads followed tobacco and liquor ad rules, it is problematic as long as the right to free speech remains in the constitution. In fact, “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 infinitely revolves on commercial speech protected by the First Amendment. Despite regulation on cannabis ads, there is a need to revise prevention approaches for youth.
Solution 1: State Monopoly
The argument on commercial speech rights and advertising restrictions could be regulated effectively under a state monopoly on marijuana. Caulkins and his colleagues suggested to apply state monopoly on marijuana in which the national government takes direct control over the retails of marijuana. Caulkins state 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. He hints that the results of a state monopoly system could be seen with the experience of the 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. Consider 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;” citizens protested, smugglings, and violent black market emerged (“Why Prohibition?”). Instead of creating a healthier life standard by cutting down alcohol consumption, crime rates increased. However, 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. 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). Some Scandinavian countries have taken similar effort to cut down alcohol consumption. 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”). Similarly, if the government imposes a state monopoly system on marijuana, it can help keep prices artificially high, minimize exposure to market, which ultimately limit adolescent marijuana users and prevent health and social risks.
Solution 1: Problems
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 get it. 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 issue; in order to turn marijuana into a government monopoly, it requires legalization of marijuana in the entire United States. “A US state cannot participate actively in cannabis distribution in the face of a continued national prohibition,” He says (Caulkins 869). Although abolishing “national prohibition” on marijuana may seem unimaginative in the near term, several US states are already in the process of legalizing marijuana and a few states have already succeeded. There exists a possibility that once the United States abolish national prohibition of the substance, a government monopoly will take over the marijuana industry.
Solution 2: Education
As of today, 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. Abolishing the thought of regulation on legalized cannabis, Armentano proposed a separate approach that could minimize the use of marijuana among teens. Armentano says “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.” Relying only on regulation is not enough to limit drug users. Instead, “regulation and public education” come hand-in-hand to prevent adolescents getting attracted to misleading marijuana advertisements. D’Amico upholds the idea 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.” She believes a better education can reduce the number of potential teens using marijuana even after viewing medical marijuana advertisements. In 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 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 about 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 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 possible predictions that such high-key educational campaign may see negative effects as experienced to anti-drug campaigns that failed in the past.
Solution 2: Problems
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. 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. When compared to DARE, the CDPHE has better chance of success 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 will 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.
In order to settle the public’s and legislators’ worry about the impact of marijuana on youth while suppress publications’ objection to restrictions on cannabis ads, both state monopoly and educational programs must be maintained. In the short term, educational programs like the 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. This is an alternative approach of regulation on advertising marijuana, which both seeks to minimize adolescent pot smokers. In the long term, a state monopoly on the pot industry can more efficiently control retails and consumption. Once the government monopolizes marijuana, cannabis ads will no longer be a worry of parents and legislators.
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.
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, 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.
-
"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.
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.
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.
icons at the top right corner of the subsection.