Marijuana prohibition

at
Categories
Tags

Do laws prohibiting the growing, manufacturing, harvesting, processing, transporting, sale, distribution,
possession and/or use of marijuana in any quantity reflect the socio-political values of the community; whether
that community is a local town/city, a state, or the nation?
Do these laws keep us safe? If prohibitions against marijuana are lifted, what’s next?

 

Sample Solution

Marijuana prohibition

Although the federal law has prohibited the use and distribution of marijuana in the United States since 1937, for the past five decades states have been experimenting with marijuana liberalization policies. State decriminalization policies were first passed in the 1970s, patient medical access laws began to get adopted in the 1990s, and more recently states have been experimenting with legalization of recreational markets. This has resulted in a spectrum of marijuana liberalization policies across the United States that is often not fully recognized or considered when conducting evaluations of recent policy changes. At the federal level, marijuana is listed as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, which means it is deemed to have no medical value and a high potential for abuse.

Additionally, in 2016, an investigation by PETA uncovered “…‘routine mutilation’ of sheep and lambs on two Argentine ranches, which supply wool to Patagonia”(Bain, 2015). Patagonia also suffered from ethical concerns regarding fair treatment of workers. The company “discovered brokers were charging migrant workers thousands of dollars for job placement at the company’s factories in Taiwan–a practice human-rights groups say is a form of slavery” (Phillips, 2017).

Reliance on High Prices – Patagonia struggles with asking a high price tag for their organic and ethically crafted products in a market that is populated with brands that offer similar products at lower prices. Patagonia’s survival is dependant on customers, who are willing to pay higher prices to support the company’s fair-trade, organic, and environmentally-conscious products. Founder of Patagonia, Yvon Chouinard indicates that, “The use of organic cotton will result in increased cost, something he is asking his customers to help offset.” He explains that, customers must be willing to pay high prices, as a way of investing in the survival of the company. Surveys have identified “about 30 percent of the population of the United States as people who, next to price and quality… the next item, for 30 percent of the people, is responsible reputation of the company. It’s a big target market for a company like Patagonia…” (Gallagher, 1996). Patagonia will constantly need an influx of loyal consumers willing to pay higher prices, not only, for products, but also for a company’s reputation and brand.
Taking a Political Stance – Patagonia risks losing customers who do not align with their political stance. The company’s political activism has resulted in the organization making enemies within the political realm. As a result of Patagonia’s steadfast efforts to support public lands and the preservation of national monuments, “…the Trump administration hit back. Mr. Zinke and Republicans in Congress accused Patagonia of playing politics to sell more clothes, and the hashtag #BoycottPatagonia began circulating on Twitter”(Gelles, 2018). According to research from Sprout Social regarding customer opinions on political positions, “20% will publicly criticize a brand if they disagree with the stance they’ve taken and 53% will purchase less from it” (Howland, 2018). This mentality of custom

This question has been answered.

Get Answer