PDF State Marijuana Legalization Initiatives: Implications for ...

State Marijuana Legalization Initiatives: Implications for Federal Law Enforcement

Lisa N. Sacco Analyst in Illicit Drugs and Crime Policy Kristin Finklea Specialist in Domestic Security

December 4, 2014

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service

7-5700

R43164

State Marijuana Legalization Initiatives: Implications for Federal Law Enforcement

Summary

Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States. In 2013, an estimated 19.8 million individuals in the United States aged 12 or older (7.5% of this population) had used marijuana in the past month. While reported marijuana use is similar to that in 2012, it has generally increased since 2007 when 5.8% of individuals aged 12 or older were current users of marijuana. Mirroring this increase in use, marijuana availability in the United States has also increased. This growth has been linked to factors such as rising marijuana production in Mexico, and increasing marijuana cultivation in the United States led by criminal networks including Mexican drug trafficking organizations.

Along with the uptick in the availability and use of marijuana in the United States, there has been a general shift in public attitudes toward the substance. In 1969, 12% of the surveyed population supported legalizing marijuana; today, more than half (52%) of surveyed adults have expressed opinions that marijuana should be legalized. And, 60% indicate that the federal government should not enforce its marijuana laws in states that allow the use of marijuana.

The federal government--through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA; P.L. 91-513; 21 U.S.C. ?801 et. seq.)--prohibits the manufacture, distribution, dispensation, and possession of marijuana. Over the last few decades, some states have deviated from an across-the-board prohibition of marijuana. Evolving state-level positions on marijuana include decriminalization initiatives, legal exceptions for medical use, and legalization of certain quantities for recreational use. Notably, in the November 2012 elections, voters in Washington State and Colorado voted to legalize, regulate, and tax the recreational use of small amounts of marijuana. In the November 2014 elections, legalization initiatives passed in Alaska, Oregon, and the District of Columbia, further spreading the discrepancy between federal and state marijuana laws in the United States. These latest moves have spurred a number of questions regarding their potential implications for related federal law enforcement activities and for the nation's drug policies on the whole. Among these questions is whether or to what extent state initiatives to decriminalize or legalize the use of marijuana conflict with federal law.

In general, federal law enforcement has tailored its efforts to target criminal networks rather than individual criminals; its stance regarding marijuana offenders appears consistent with this position. While drug-related investigations and prosecutions remain a priority for federal law enforcement, the Obama Administration has suggested that efforts will be harnessed against large-scale trafficking organizations rather than on recreational users of marijuana. In an August 2013 memorandum, Deputy Attorney General Cole stated that while marijuana remains an illegal substance under the Controlled Substances Act, the Department of Justice would focus its resources on the "most significant threats in the most effective, consistent, and rational way." The memo outlined eight enforcement priorities including preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors and preventing the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law into other states. It is unclear whether or how the Department of Justice is tracking activity to ensure that federal enforcement priorities are being followed in states that have legalized marijuana.

Some may question whether state-level laws and regulations regarding marijuana prohibition--in particular those that clash with federal laws--may adversely impact collaborative law enforcement efforts and relationships. Currently, there is no evidence to suggest that the operation of these collaborative bodies has been impacted by current state-level marijuana decriminalization or legalization initiatives. Data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission seem to

Congressional Research Service

State Marijuana Legalization Initiatives: Implications for Federal Law Enforcement

indicate a federal law enforcement focus on trafficking as opposed to possession offenses. Of the federal drug cases with marijuana listed as the primary drug type (21.6% of total drug cases sentenced), over 98% involved a sentence for drug trafficking in FY2013. A number of criminal networks rely heavily on profits generated from the sale of illegal drugs-- including marijuana--in the United States. As such, scholars and policymakers have questioned whether or how any changes in state or federal marijuana policy in the United States might impact organized crime proceeds and levels of drug trafficking-related violence, particularly in Mexico. In short, there are no definitive answers to these questions; without clear understanding of (1) actual proceeds generated by the sale of illicit drugs in the United States, (2) the proportion of total proceeds attributable to the sale of marijuana, and (3) the proportion of marijuana sales controlled by criminal organizations and affiliated gangs, any estimates of how marijuana legalization might impact the drug trafficking organizations are purely speculative. Given the differences between federal marijuana policies and those of states that have authorized use of marijuana in some capacity, Congress may choose to address state legalization initiatives in a number of ways, or choose to take no action. Among the host of options, policymakers may choose to amend or affirm federal marijuana policy, exercise oversight over federal law enforcement activities, or incentivize state policies through the provision or denial of certain funds.

Congressional Research Service

State Marijuana Legalization Initiatives: Implications for Federal Law Enforcement

Contents

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1 Background on Federal Marijuana Policy ....................................................................................... 3 Trends in States................................................................................................................................ 5

Decriminalization ...................................................................................................................... 5 Medical Marijuana Exceptions.................................................................................................. 6 Recreational Legalization .......................................................................................................... 6 Enforcement Priorities: A Focus on Traffickers............................................................................... 7 Selected Counter-Drug Trafficking Efforts ............................................................................. 10 Prosecutions and Convictions Data ......................................................................................... 13 Implications for Federal Law Enforcement ................................................................................... 15 Federal, State, and Local Cooperation..................................................................................... 15 Synthetic Alternatives.............................................................................................................. 16 Legalization Impact on Criminal Networks................................................................................... 17 Going Forward: Congressional Options ........................................................................................ 19 Federal Marijuana Policy--The Controlled Substances Act ................................................... 20 Oversight of Federal Law Enforcement Activities .................................................................. 21

Review of Agency Missions.............................................................................................. 21 Cooperation with State and Local Law Enforcement........................................................ 21 Oversight of Federal Enforcement Priorities..................................................................... 22 Policy-Linked Funding for States............................................................................................ 22

Figures

Figure 1. Drug Cases Filed with U.S. Attorneys............................................................................ 13 Figure 2. Drug Cases Sentenced in Federal Court, FY2013.......................................................... 14

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 23

Congressional Research Service

State Marijuana Legalization Initiatives: Implications for Federal Law Enforcement

Introduction

Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States. In 2013, an estimated 19.8 million individuals in the United States aged 12 or older (7.5% of this population) were current (past month) users of marijuana.1 While reported marijuana use is similar to that in 2012, it has generally increased since 2007 when 5.8% of individuals aged 12 or older were current users of marijuana.2 The past decade has seen a decline in youth perceptions of risk tied to smoking marijuana; however, the rate of past-month marijuana use among youth declined between 2011 and 2013 (7.1%).3 Youth also perceive that obtaining marijuana--if they desire it--is relatively easy.4 Indeed, marijuana availability in the United States has increased, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). This increase has been linked to factors such as rising marijuana production in Mexico and increasing marijuana cultivation in the United States led by criminal networks including Mexican drug trafficking organizations.5

The uptick in availability and use of marijuana in the United States is coupled with a general shift in public attitudes toward the substance. In 1969, 12% of the surveyed population supported legalizing marijuana; today, more than half (52%) of surveyed adults feel that marijuana should be legalized.6 In addition, 60% indicate that the federal government should not enforce federal laws prohibiting marijuana use in those states that allow for its use.7

Marijuana is currently listed as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).8 This indicates that the federal government has determined that

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.9

1 Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings, September 2014, p. 16. Hereinafter, Results from 2013 NSDUH. 2 Between 2007 and 2013, the proportion of individuals aged 12 or older who were "current" users of marijuana ranged from 5.8%-7.5% of this population. See Results from 2013 NSDUH, p. 17. 3 Results from 2013 NSDUH, p. 73. For this study, "youth" are individuals 12 to 17 years of age. 4 Ibid., p. 75. Nearly half of surveyed youth indicated that obtaining marijuana would be "fairly easy" or "very easy" to obtain if desired. 5 U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, 2013 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary, DEA-NWW-DIR-017-13, November 2013. Hereinafter, NDTA, 2013. 6 Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, As Midterms Near, GOP Leads on Key Issues, Democrats Have a More Positive Image, October 23, 2014. 7 Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, Majority of Americans Say Government Should Not Force Federal Marijuana Laws on States, August 30, 2013 (Based on poll data from March 2013). 8 For more information on the CSA, see the text box below. 9 21 U.S.C. ?812(b)(1).

Congressional Research Service

1

State Marijuana Legalization Initiatives: Implications for Federal Law Enforcement

Controlled Substances Act (CSA)

The CSA was enacted as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.10 It regulates the manufacture, possession, use, importation, and distribution of certain drugs, substances, and precursor chemicals. Under the CSA, there are five schedules under which substances may be classified--Schedule I being the most restrictive.11 Substances placed onto one of the five schedules are evaluated on

? actual or relative potential for abuse;

? known scientific evidence of pharmacological effects;

? current scientific knowledge of the substance;

? history and current pattern of abuse;

? scope, duration, and significance of abuse;

? risk to public health;

? psychic or physiological dependence liability; and

? whether the substance is an immediate precursor of an already-scheduled substance.

U.S. federal drug control policies--and specifically those positions relating to marijuana-- continue to generate debates among policymakers, law enforcement officials, scholars, and the public. Even prior to the federal government's move in 1970 to criminalize the manufacture, distribution, dispensation, and possession of marijuana,12 there were significant discussions over marijuana's place in American society.

While the federal government maintains marijuana's current place as a Schedule I controlled substance, states have established a range of views and policies regarding its medical and recreational use. As of November 2014, over half of all states and the District of Columbia allowed for the medical use of marijuana in some capacity.13 In the November 2012 elections, voters in Washington State and Colorado voted to legalize, regulate, and tax small amounts of marijuana for recreational use. In the November 2014 elections, voters in the District of Columbia, Oregon, and Alaska also passed recreational legalization initiatives. These moves have spurred a number of questions regarding their potential implications for related federal law enforcement activities and for the nation's drug policies on the whole.

This report provides a background on federal marijuana policy as well as an overview of state trends with respect to marijuana decriminalization and legalization--for both medical and

10 P.L. 91-513; 21 U.S.C. ?801 et. seq. For more information on the CSA, see CRS Report RL34635, The Controlled Substances Act: Regulatory Requirements, by Brian T. Yeh, and CRS Report RL30722, Drug Offenses: Maximum Fines and Terms of Imprisonment for Violation of the Federal Controlled Substances Act and Related Laws, by Brian T. Yeh. 11 Federal rulemaking proceedings to add, delete, or change the schedule of a drug or substance may be initiated by the Attorney General (through the Drug Enforcement Administration), the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or by petition by any interested person. 21 U.S.C. ?811(a). Congress may also change the scheduling status of a drug or substance through legislation. 12 21 U.S.C. ?812 and ?841. For more information, see the section, "Background on Federal Marijuana Policy." 13 National Conference of State Legislatures, State Medical Marijuana Laws, November 2014, issues-research/health/state-medical-marijuana-laws.aspx. Some states allow broad access to medical marijuana while others have more narrow conditions under which access is granted. For example, in Alabama medical marijuana may only be dispensed by the University of Alabama and only to treat a person with an epileptic condition under certain conditions.

Congressional Research Service

2

State Marijuana Legalization Initiatives: Implications for Federal Law Enforcement

recreational uses. It then analyzes relevant issues for U.S. federal law enforcement as well as for the criminal organizations involved in producing, distributing, and profiting from the black market sale of marijuana. This report also outlines a number of related policy questions that Congress may confront. Of note, it does not discuss the legal issues associated with state-level initiatives to legalize marijuana for recreational use.14

Background on Federal Marijuana Policy

Until 1937, the growth and use of marijuana was legal under federal law.15 The federal government unofficially banned marijuana under the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 (MTA; P.L. 75238).16 The MTA imposed a strict regulation requiring a high-cost transfer tax stamp for every sale of marijuana, and these stamps were rarely issued by the federal government.17 Shortly after passage of the MTA, all states made the possession of marijuana illegal.18

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA), enacted as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-513), placed the control of marijuana and other plant, drug, and chemical substances under federal jurisdiction regardless of state regulations and laws. In designating marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance, this legislation officially prohibited the manufacture, distribution, dispensation, and possession of marijuana.19

As part of the CSA, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, also known as the Shafer Commission, was established to study marijuana in the United States.20 Specifically, this commission was charged with examining issues such as

(A) the extent of use of marihuana in the United States to include its various sources of users, number of arrests, number of convictions, amount of marihuana seized, type of user, nature of use;

(B) an evaluation of the efficacy of existing marihuana laws;

(C) a study of the pharmacology of marihuana and its immediate and long-term effects, both physiological and psychological;

(D) the relationship of marihuana use to aggressive behavior and crime;

14 For information on legal issues surrounding the Colorado and Washington laws regarding recreational marijuana, see CRS Report R43034, State Legalization of Recreational Marijuana: Selected Legal Issues, by Todd Garvey and Brian T. Yeh. 15 States regulated marijuana but did not begin to ban it until after 1937. 16 Congressional testimony indicated that marijuana, while it was a problem in the Southwest United States starting in the mid-1920s, became a national menace in the mid-1930s (1935-1937). See statement by H. J. Anslinger, Commissioner of Narcotics, Bureau of Narcotics, Department of the Treasury, before the U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Taxation of Marihuana, 75th Cong., 1st sess., April 27, 1937. 17 Charles F. Levinthal, Drugs, Society, and Criminal Justice, 3rd ed. (New York: Prentice Hall, 2012), p. 58. 18 In Leary v. United States (395 U.S. 6 (1968)), the MTA was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court as a violation of the Fifth Amendment's privilege against compelled self-incrimination. 19 21 U.S.C. ?812 and ?841. Of note, growing a marijuana plant is considered manufacturing marijuana. 20 The commission was composed of two Members of the Senate, two Members of the House, and nine members appointed by the President of the United States. President Nixon appointed Raymond Shafer as the Commissioner.

Congressional Research Service

3

State Marijuana Legalization Initiatives: Implications for Federal Law Enforcement

(E) the relationship between marihuana and the use of other drugs; and

(F) the international control of marihuana.21

The Shafer Commission, in concluding its review, produced two reports: (1) Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, and (2) Drug Use in America: Problem in Perspective.22

In its first report, the Shafer Commission discussed the perception of marijuana as a major social problem and how it came to be viewed as such.23 It made a number of recommendations, including the development of a "social control policy seeking to discourage marihuana use, while concentrating primarily on the prevention of heavy and very heavy use."24 In this first report, the Shafer Commission also called the application of the criminal law in cases of personal use of marijuana "constitutionally suspect" and declared that "total prohibition is functionally inappropriate."25 Of note, federal criminalization and prohibition of marijuana was never altered, either administratively or legislatively, to comply with the recommendations of the Shafer Commission.

In its second report, the Shafer Commission reviewed the use of all drugs in the United States, not solely marijuana. It examined the origins of the drug problem in the United States, including the social costs of drug use, and once again made specific recommendations regarding social policy. Among other conclusions regarding marijuana, the Shafer Commission indicated that aggressive behavior generally cannot be attributed to marijuana use.26 The Shafer Commission also reaffirmed its previous findings and recommendations regarding marijuana and added the following statement:

The risk potential of marihuana is quite low compared to the potent psychoactive substances, and even its widespread consumption does not involve social cost now associated with most of the stimulants and depressants (Jones, 1973; Tinklenberg, 1971). Nonetheless, the Commission remains persuaded that availability of this drug should not be institutionalized at this time.27

21 P.L. 91-513, ?601(d).

22 National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, First Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Washington, DC, March 1972. Hereinafter, First Report of the Shafer Commission; and National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Drug Use in America: Problem in Perspective, Second Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Washington, DC, March 1973. Hereinafter, Second Report of the Shafer Commission. 23 The commission stated that three factors contributed to the perception of marijuana as a major national problem including "[1] the illegal behavior is highly visible to all segments of our society, [2] use of the drug is perceived to threaten the health and morality not only of the individual but of society itself, and [3] most important, the drug has evolved in the late sixties and early seventies as a symbol of wider social conflicts and public issues." First Report of the Shafer Commission, p. 6. 24 First Report of the Shafer Commission, p. 134. 25 Ibid., pp. 142-143.

26 Second Report of the Shafer Commission, p. 158. 27 Ibid, p. 224. In this statement, the Shafer Commission cites the following studies: R.T. Jones, Mental Illness and Drugs: Pre-Existing Psychopathology and Response to Psychoactive Drugs, Paper Prepared for the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1973 and J.R. Tinklenberg, Marihuana and Crime, Paper Prepared for the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, Unpublished, October 1971.

Congressional Research Service

4

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download