Description
Additional information to help you complete the policy analysis proposal can be found in this folder. The proposal should include a title page and a references page, citing roughly 7-10 sources. Please make use of rubric to to draft poposal.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Running Head: POLICY PROPOSAL: RECREATAIONAL MARIJUANA IN VIRGINIA
Policy Proposal: Recreational Marijuana in Virginia
Government 623 Public Policy Initiatives
January 2018
Regent University
Prepared for GOV 623 Public Policy Initiatives; taught by Dr. Elijah Agyapong.
Background
On December 27, 2018, Virginia state senator Adam Ebbin introduced legislation that
would reduce penalties for those who were found to be in possession of small amounts of
marijuana. Democrat Steve Heretick likewise introduced legislation that would fully legalize
marijuana use, manufacture, and distribution (Tyree, 2019). As calls for the legalization of
marijuana grow, Virginia is finding itself as a flashpoint in this debate. Although there is a
concurrent discussion regarding the use of marijuana for medical purposes, this study will focus
on the recreational aspect of marijuana.
Marijuana is a drug developed from the cannabis plant. The main psychoactive drug
found in marijuana is tetrahydrocannibol, or THC, which is what produces euphoric feelings for
users (Hudak, 2016, pp. 14-15). As of 2019, 10 states plus the District of Columbia have fully
legalized recreational marijuana, with additional states allowing it in small amounts. Colorado
and Washington became the first two states to fully legalize it in 2012, followed by Alaska,
California, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Oregon. In 2018, three more
states, including Maine, Michigan, and Vermont all legalized the use of recreational marijuana
(National Council of State Legislatures, 2018).
No states allowed recreational marijuana before 2012, however as of 2019, 20% of states
have fully legalized it. Calls for legalization are not only growing among states, but voters’
opinions have taken a dramatic shift in favor of legalization as well. According to Pew Research,
62% of Americans now support legalization, with Millennials showing the strongest support at
74%. Twenty years ago, the results were opposite, with 60% of those surveyed stating
recreational marijuana use should be illegal (Hartig & Geiger, 2018). The issue of recreational
marijuana legalization continues to be a major policy issue encompasses areas ranging from
economics, to personal health, to criminal justice.
Significance of the Problem
Recreational marijuana legalization may seem like a fairly simple solution to what many
view as a harmless drug. Advocates say that marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol or
tobacco, and in fact may be less so (Page, 2005, p. 24-25; Hudak, 2016, p. 150). Nevertheless,
legalization has the potential to affect public health and overall public morality in many ways.
One of the largest contentions surrounding marijuana is its medical effects. First, marijuana is
known to impair brain development in adolescents, resulting in increasing difficulty in learning
and memory recall through the blocking of receptors in the hippocampus. This negatively affects
both short- and long-term memory (Walters, 2005, p. 18). According to the American Academy
of Pediatrics (2017), roughly 10% of adolescent users become addicted (p. 33). Other effects
include lung problems, psychotic symptoms, and neurological deficiency, particularly among
chronic users (Hall & Lynskey, 2016, p. 1764-1765).
Beyond the potential physical effects, there is the question of whether it is beneficial to
Virginians as a whole. After Colorado legalized marijuana, 20% of those involved in fatal car
crashes tested positive for THC, up from 10% three years prior (Vogel, 2018, p. E1238). In
addition, a 2016 study in Colorado found a substantial uptick in secondhand marijuana ingestion,
along with a 30% increase in poison control calls by those affected by marijuana (Thomas,
Moser, Dickerson-Young & Mazor, 2017, p. 160). There is also a moral component to
legalization. Regardless of health effects, some view marijuana bans as necessary to uphold
previously established moral norms, which are geared to prevent a destabilization of society
(Montigny, 2011, p. 27). When it comes to marijuana legalization, it is the government’s
responsibility to ensure the wellbeing of the public. This means it must address the issue in a way
that works for all of Virginia’s citizens.
Policy Alternatives
There are several policy alternatives through which recreational marijuana in Virginia
can be dealt with. First, as introduced by delegate Steve Heretick, there is the policy of full
legalization. By ending enforcement of marijuana, proponents claim that it will bring in new
revenue for the state. In Colorado, marijuana tax revenue brought in over $250 million in 2018,
with projections set to top $1 billion in total revenue since recreational sales began (Colorado
Department of Revenue, 2019). Not only will it bring revenue, but also jobs. Nationally, the
marijuana industry has grown to nearly 200,000 employees working in both recreational and
medical marijuana dispensaries (Giammona, 2018). Proponents claim that it can bring muchneeded revenue to states.
Second, there is the argument for decriminalization, a compromise approach. This has
been a popular policy, which reduces and/or abolishes penalties for those found with small
amounts of marijuana. As referenced earlier, state senator Adam Ebbin prefers a
decriminalization approach. In his bill, those found with up to a half-ounce of marijuana would
only have to pay a $50 fine for a first time offense; the current law has penalties of up to 30 days
in jail and up to a $500 fine for first time offenders (Lavoie, 2018). This would also have the
benefit of easing some of the burdens on law enforcement. In 2016, almost 600,000 arrests
nationwide were made for those in possession of marijuana (Giammona, 2018). Decriminalizing
would allow authorities to focus on more violent and damaging crime and drugs.
Third, some want to keep recreational marijuana illegal. The main evidence for such an
approach is that marijuana damages the health of users, especially over time. Marijuana not only
hinders cognitive functions, but it also changes the brain’s reward center, meaning marijuana
users may seek out more potent drugs. Additionally, one study found that those who began using
marijuana as teenagers lost an average of seven IQ points by the time they were middle-aged
(National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2018). Proponents of keeping recreational marijuana illegal
argue that the health effects are too dire to allow widespread use. Each of these alternatives are
currently employed in different states.
Conclusion
When it comes to developing a sound policy for marijuana, there are several factors that
come into play. The approach must consider public health, law enforcement capacity, and the
potential economic benefits. Each of the above-mentioned alternatives prioritizes one or more of
these factors over the others. The crux for Virginia lawmakers is to develop the necessary
balance between economic benefit and the wellbeing of its citizens. As longitudinal research on
the effects of marijuana use are becoming more available, they must be carefully studied to
determine if marijuana is too harmful. A possible solution is to keep recreational marijuana
illegal but reduce penalties for those found in possession of it. This could be effective because it
does not incentivize a potentially harmful practice but does alleviate a key criminal justice
concern. Proponents of full legalization would argue that this does not properly capitalize on
potential revenue, however given that marijuana’s health effects are still being discovered and
have shown to be harmful, for the interest of the public, keeping marijuana illegal while reducing
penalties is a sound policy through which multiple stakeholders can find common ground.
References
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2017). Medical risks of marijuana. Itasca: AAP. Retrieved
from EBSCOhost.
Colorado Department of Revenue. (2019). Marijuana tax data. Retrieved from
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/revenue/colorado-marijuana-tax-data
Lavoie, D. (2018, December 27). Virginia to again consider marijuana decriminalization.
Roanoke Times. Retrieved from https://www.roanoke.com/news/politics/general
_assembly/ virginia-to-again-consider-marijuana-decriminalization/article_26355d8e192a-5450-a651-f8c6ed0545cc.html
Giammona, C. (2018, November 8). Marijuana legalization: A budding industry. Bloomberg.
Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/marijuana-legalization
Hall, W. & Lynksey, M. (2016, October 1). Evaluating the public health impacts of legalizing
recreational cannabis use in the United States. Addiction, (111)10, 1764-1773.
doi:10.1111/add.13428
Hartig, H. & Geiger, A. (2018, October 8). About six-in-ten Americans support marijuana
legalization. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2018/10/08/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/
Hudak, J. (2016). Marijuana: A short history. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Montigny, E. (2011). The real dope: Social, legal, and historical perspectives on the regulation of
drugs in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
National Council of State Legislatures. (2018, December 14). Marijuana overview. Retrieved
from http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/marijuana-overview.aspx
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2018, June). What are marijuana’s long-term effects on the
brain? Retrieved from https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/researchreports/marijuana/what-are-marijuanas-long-term-effects-brain
Page, C. The harmful effects of marijuana use are exaggerated. In T. Roleff (Ed.), Drug Abuse:
Opposing Viewpoints (pp. 23-26). Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press.
Thomas, A., Moser, E., Dickerson-Young, T. & Mazor, S. (2017). A review of pediatric
marijuana exposure in the setting of increased legalization. Clinical Pediatric Emergency
Medicine, 18(3), 159-162. doi:10.1016/j.cpem.2017.07.003
Tyree, E. (2019, January 9). Bill introduced to legalize marijuana in Virginia. WSET. Retrieved
from https://wset.com/news/at-the-capitol/bill-introduced-to-legalize-marijuana-invirginia
Walters, J. (2005). Marijuana is harmful. In T. Roleff (Ed.), Drug Abuse: Opposing Viewpoints
(pp. 18-22). Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press.
Vogel, L. (2018, October 15). What really happened after Colorado legalized marijuana?
Canadian Medical Association Journal, 190(41), E1237-E1238. doi:10.1503/cmaj.1095665
Criteria
Writing:
Grammar &
Style (10%)
Using Evidence
to Build an
Argument
(10%)
Problem
Definition
(20%)
Significance of
the Problem
(20%)
Levels of Achievement (Using Percent Range)
Poor (0-69 pts)
Average (70-79 pts)
Proposal contains numerous Proposal contains two or
errors and is largely
more types of
unintelligible. Language
grammatical errors and
throughout essay is
parts of the paper are
colloquial or conversational, unintelligible. Essay
may include slang and
contains three or more
informal terms.
stylistic errors.
Written in first person.
Proposal rests largely on
Proposal includes two to
writer’s own assertions with four useful scholarly
little supporting evidence.
sources that are poorly
APA citations are not
integrated. Follows APA
appropriate. Scholarly
formatting but one or
language for referencing
two pieces of
authors is missing.
information are incorrect
or missing from citations.
Opinions are cited as facts.
One or two quoting
errors are present.
Fails to identify, define, and Identifies a potential
justify a relevant or
policy issue but the
substantive policy problem
problem is too broad and
for the term project. The
not adequately defined.
discussion is generally poor
Lacks a strong thesis and
and does not include the
compelling evidence to
elements specified in the
justify why the problem
proposal guidelines.
commands government’s
attention.
Fails to present an
acceptable thesis to
highlight the significance of
Discussion on the
significance of the
problem is acceptable
Good (80-89 pts)
Proposal contains one or two
grammatical errors but is
written in proper style with
few passive sentences. Essay
contains one or two stylistic
errors.
Proposal includes four to
seven scholarly sources that
are adequately integrated.
Some sources contradict or
are unrelated to the
argument. APA citation
formatting is satisfactory but
at least one quoting error may
be present.
Identifies a topical policy issue
and uses an adequate set of
literature to define the
problem. The problem
definition is promising but
could be improved to make
the task more manageable.
Presents adequate evidence
to justify the need for
governmental intervention.
Discussion on the significance
of the problem is promising
and generally compelling. One
Excellent (90-100 pts)
Proposal is exemplary and well-written,
has been spell checked and writing is
appropriate to the task. Writing is
consistent with standards for formal,
academic writing.
Academic terms are used.
Writing is in third-person unless
otherwise requested.
Proposal is exemplary and includes
eight or more academic sources to
support the overall argument. Essay
references course material. Authors are
brought into conversation with one
another and opinions are not cited as
facts. Essay demonstrates impeccable
APA citation formatting. Uses direct
quotes sparingly, rather paraphrasing
where appropriate.
Identifies a topical policy issue and
utilizes a robust set of scholarly
literature to define the nature and
scope of the problem. The policy issue
is manageable and appropriate for the
task. Presents compelling evidence to
justify the need for governmental
intervention. Problem definition is
nuanced and demonstrates an
excellent understanding and
application of course materials.
Discussion on the significance of the
problem is thoughtful and compelling
using scholarly evidence to
the problem. Most elements
specified in the proposal
guidelines (i.e., use of
economic & non-economic
indicators, stakeholders,
implications, etc.) are
missing or not adequately
addressed.
Policy
Alternatives
(20%)
Fails to present any
acceptable goals and policy
alternatives to address the
policy problem.
Conclusion
(20%)
Proposal does not include
an acceptable conclusion to
highlight the policy problem,
goals, and speculation about
the most viable
alternative(s). No
recommendations are
offered for future action.
but not compelling. Two
elements specified in the
proposal guidelines (i.e.,
use of economic & noneconomic indicators,
stakeholders,
implications, etc.) are
missing or not
adequately addressed.
One of the proposed
policy alternatives is
useful in addressing the
problem. Identifies one
or two relevant goals to
serve as benchmarks for
evaluating the
alternatives.
Proposal includes an
acceptable conclusion,
but two or three key
elements emphasized in
the guidelines (i.e.,
summary of policy
problem, goals,
speculation about the
most viable
alternative(s), and
recommendations for
future action) are missing
or not appropriately
discussed.
of the elements specified in
the proposal guidelines (i.e.,
use of economic & noneconomic indicators,
stakeholders, implications,
etc.) is missing or not
adequately addressed.
substantiate arguments. All elements
specified in the proposal guidelines
(i.e., use of economic & non-economic
indicators, stakeholders, implications,
etc.) are carefully addressed.
Two of the proposed policy
alternatives are useful in
addressing the problem.
Identifies at least two relevant
goals to serve as benchmarks
for evaluating the alternatives.
Presents three or more practical policy
alternatives to address the problem.
Clearly describes and justifies each
alternative. Identifies three or more
relevant goals to serve as benchmarks
for evaluating the alternatives.
Conclusion is thoughtful but
one or two elements
emphasized in the guidelines
(i.e., summary of policy
problem, goals, speculation
about the most viable
alternative(s), and
recommendations for future
action) may be missing or not
adequately discussed.
Conclusion is nuanced, thoughtful, and
exemplary. Includes all elements
emphasized in the guidelines (i.e.,
summary of policy problem, goals,
speculation about the most viable
alternative(s), and recommendations
for future action).
GOV 623: Guidelines for the Policy Analysis Proposal
Students,
The following is a guideline to help you write an excellent policy analysis proposal.
1. Description of the proposed policy problem:
The purpose of this assignment is for you to flesh out exactly what you want to research and
write. As you all know, policy problems are often complex, broad, and unwieldy, meaning that
the policy analyst (that is, you, in this case) must narrow the broad problem topic. For example,
let’s say you are interested in tackling prison overcrowding. How do you start?
What is the problem? What factors contribute to prison overcrowding? What is currently being
done to address this problem? Is there some way to narrow the problem topic to something more
manageable? In other words, can we attribute the rate of increase in the US prison population to
other factors, such as an increase in certain crimes, problems with the judicial system, etc.?
Policy problems are at all levels of government: national, state, and local. You encounter them
every day. For those of you who work full-time, consider the policy problems that are apparent
in your area of employment. Or, for those of you who are full-time students and are not fully
employed, what public problem areas interest you the most? Why? How does this problem affect
the greater public interest?
2. Explanation of why the proposed policy problem is significant and deserves
governmental attention:
Briefly discuss a few economic and non-economic indicators to highlight the significance of the
problem. What percentage of the population is affected by the problem? Which stakeholders are
involved? How is the issue connected to other public problems? What are the implications if the
problem is not addressed?
My goal is for you to choose a topic that is local, something that, by its nature, is more
manageable. The example I gave above is certainly intriguing, but it is way too large for this
class, given the limitations in time and resources. However, I am open to almost all policy
problem areas–this is what the policy proposal assignment is all about. It gives you the
opportunity to flesh out exactly what you are trying to do.
Talk to your fellow workers, student colleagues, friends, relatives, etc. Search the news media.
Go back through notes and readings of previous classes you have taken at Regent. What about
policy problems that RSG faculty are working on?
For the most part, all options are on the table. The primary limits are that it must be a problem
that needs some level of government attention, one that is manageable, and one that, in the end,
you can produce viable alternatives or initiatives for solving or at least managing.
In addition to the Kraft and Furlong readings, I would strongly urge you to read Bardach and
Patashnik. The authors do a tremendous job of helping the policy analyst, whether a beginner or
expert, think through the steps of problem definition.
3. Development of goals and possible alternatives for addressing the problem
Goals and objectives are important to the policy analyst; they provide benchmarks for progress.
As you think through the problem definition stage of your project, consider what goals, whether
outcomes (political-oriented) or outputs (policy-oriented, specifically quantitative in nature) you
are trying to achieve. For example, consider the prison overcrowding illustration. An outcome is
qualitative and/or normative in nature, such as providing safer and more secure prison
environments with reduced inmate numbers, while output is quantitative and numeric, such as
“reducing state prison overcrowding by 10% over the next 10 years.”
Goals and objectives are not written in stone. You can adjust as you go—that is the point of good
research; you are always adjusting to new information gained and new knowledge acquired.
Alternatives, of course, are possible ways of addressing the problem. What does the literature
say? What are some current legislative, executive, judicial, or bureaucratic actions taken to
address the problem—whether successful or not? If not successful, consider why these means
are/were unsuccessful. What can you do to address the lack of policy success?
Alternative development or building is largely based on a couple of factors: 1) brainstorming and
2) examining past practices, assessing to what degree they did or did not work, specifically
asking “Why?” and then formulating new approaches to addressing the problem. Or, more
practically, drawing from a variety of different approaches or alternatives and forming a hybrid
of some sort.
Keep in mind that alternatives need to be “realistic” and “viable.” This means that you are not
coming up with “pie in the sky” idealistic ways to address the problem. The alternatives need to
be politically palatable, policy feasible, revenue friendly, etc. Remember, you are operating
within constraints (e.g., legislatively, politically, fiscally, bureaucratically, etc.). For example,
even if one agreed with Donald Trump’s “alternative” to the illegal immigration problem (e.g.,
deport all illegal immigrants back to Mexico—assuming, of course, that all illegal immigrants
come from Mexico, which we know they do not), his alternative is impractical! It simply could
not happen in either/both a democratic and/or bureaucratic framework. First, popular opinion
would not provide the political impetus for it to happen, and second, organizationally, it would
be next to impossible to pull it off.
4. Brief conclusion and recommendation for future action
Finally, provide some initial concluding thoughts about the problem, establishing goals,
alternative development, and various responses to your policy alternatives.
What future action might you consider necessary to continue to address the problem?
This portion of the proposal is more speculation than anything else—you haven’t done the
research. However, based on the preliminary research and your own experience, what
conclusions and recommendations for future action are necessary?
I hope this brief explanation helps. It is important to get off on the right foot, and providing a
solid outline—which is what the proposal is—is a solid first step. Students should note that
policy analysis is not advocacy for partisan ideological solutions or pet theories. Your task is not
to push a preferred policy alternative. Instead, you will apply rigorous economic and noneconomic criteria to evaluate three policy solutions and recommend the most viable alternative
based on the objective assessment.
Some examples of policy analysis topics/questions:
A. Use of Common Core educational requirements for states and localities;
B. Promotion of environmental sustainability by local government through such projects as
recycling, pollution control, proper use of zoning and planning;
C. Implementation of “green power” and local community reaction;
D. States and cities combating the increase in legal, i.e. prescription, and illegal drug abuse;
E. The costs and benefits of running city 311, 411, and/or 911 systems;
F. The costs and benefits of illegal immigration (perhaps now refugees) on state and
localities’ social service capacity;
G. Alleviate overcrowding prisons in states such as California;
H. State and local responses to improve the quality of health care and costs cut in the wake
of the deteriorating fiscal, management, and organizational components of the Affordable
Care Act;
I. Federal, state, and local responses to the coronavirus pandemic;
J. Cooperation between the feds and states on improving infrastructure investment;
K. Use of social media by governments to enhance transparency and citizen engagement
(e.g. how apps are getting citizens engaged; how social networking helps cops fight
gangs);
L. Use of public-private partnerships to finance public transportation projects;
M. Use of outsourcing and privatization of government law enforcement services;
N. Others? Contact me to discuss other topics before submitting the paper proposal.
Assignment: Policy Analysis Proposal is due January 28th by 11:59 PM ET
Upload a Word Document in Week 3 Assignments folder in Canvas
A. Policy Analysis Proposal: In approximately 3-4 double-spaced pages, provide a brief
description and overview of your proposed policy analysis project. The purpose of the
outline is to establish direction and foundation, so take some time to do your initial
reading and research. Your proposal should include the following sections:
1. Problem Definition: Description of the proposed policy problem;
2. Significance of the Problem: Explanation of why the proposed policy problem is
significant and deserves governmental attention;
3. Policy Alternatives: Development of goals and possible alternatives for
addressing the problem;
4. Conclusion: A brief conclusion and recommendation for future action.
Include a title page and references page, citing roughly 7-10 sources (these are not part of
the page limit indicated above). Citations and references should be in the APA format.
Contact the writing center if you are not familiar with this format.
Blessings!
Dr. Agyapong
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
