Drug Policy Case Study

Philadelphia policymakers actively searched for a beneficial solution to their war-on-drugs, but remained mindful of the government’s overarching rule and contrasting beliefs. One of the largest disputes between local and federal was the handling of drug-related charges, most notably with the sentencing of offenders. The federal government set a precedent of allowing each offender to receive a fair trial, but their initial beliefs of strict enforcement were not abandoned. Though each offender would be given a just trial, they were still more likely to be given a long prison sentence. The harshness of these drug sentences led to a negative impact on prison population:
The impacts on prison populations are potentially the most serious, because
there is considerably less flexibility in the criminal justice system to handle increases in prison population (because of prison capacity constraints) than to handle increases in court caseloads (where the rate of case dismissals can be increased) or in probation caseloads(where probation officers can simply reduce the already small time spent with probationers). With most prison systems in the United States currently at or above their capacities (Rutherford et al., 1977; Krajick, 1978), increases in prison populations resulting from changes in sentencing could cause severe overcrowding in many prisons, (Miller 53).

As reported in a September 2015 Philadelphia Tribune article, “In 1980, 26 percent of convicted drug offenders received sentences of probation. By 2014, the proportion had fallen to just 6 percent, with judges sending nearly all drug offenders to prison instead.” Once drug offenses were categorized as felonies, they were to involve the prison system, but if city officials could limit the penalty of minor offenses, then the city could limit the growing impact on the state prison population. Philadelphia’s first attempt at limiting the penalty of minor offenses was the previously mentioned bill by Mayor Kenney, the 2014 Marijuana Decriminalization Bill. Though it was the city’s first departure from state possession laws, the single goal of the bill was to achieve zero arrests by offering other alternatives. Aside from the new fines for possession and public use, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office has implemented a diversionary program. To avoid prison time, offenders can now pay a $200 fine and complete a class at the city’s community-service center. After a year of the decriminalization bill being in effect, the city has not met Kenney’s goal of zero arrests, but arrests have significantly lowered. “In fact, since decriminalization took effect, police have cited 73 percent fewer people than they arrested for possessing weed during the same time period in the year prior to decriminalization,” (Farr 1). After marijuana decriminalization proved to be beneficial towards the community, the state of Pennsylvania continued Philadelphia’s work of lessening the stigma of recreational drugs, especially marijuana. In May 2016, the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act, Act 16, was created. By the end of the year, doctors were now going to be able to prescribe patients in need with a new form of treatment, if a set process was followed. In order to be able to give a prescription, each doctor has to attend a state-wide four hour course that was developed by the Department of Health and then register with the department. If a patient suffers from one of the approved medical conditions, then they are able to receive the doctor’s prescription once they get a certification from the state, which gains an individual access to the new state dispensaries. Act 16 is Pennsylvania’s first attempt at commercializing marijuana and if successful, it could provide a large source of income for the state and city economies. With a sales tax of 2.9% and a population of 5.03 million, Colorado earned $6 million in medical marijuana tax revenue during an 8 month sales period. In comparison to Colorado’s income, Pennsylvania could make well over $15 million from the first few months of their new venture into medical marijuana. That estimated tax revenue gross could be even higher, if the higher sales tax among Pennsylvania cities was accounted for. Philadelphia’s current sales tax is 8%, which is two percent higher than the rest of the state. Philadelphia’s push into policy change has led the state of Pennsylvania into a new era of drug policy.
While the city has opened itself to new ways of tolerating and moderating the use of recreational drugs, each new policy change had to be supported and found legitimate by federal law. If federal law was not in agreement with a city or state’s policymaking, then the policy in question would become nullified. While the federal government supports and enforces the nation’s original drug policy, The Controlled Substances Act, which continues to categorize marijuana as a prohibited drug, Congress has openly respected a state’s desire to announce medical marijuana laws and have taken no action to impede on the policy changes. “Finding that the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment demonstrates Congress’ intent ‘that States implement their medical marijuana laws in the ways they see fit’, without federal intrusion.” With the federal government choosing to give local municipalities’ leniency on the issue, the future relationship between the government and recreational drugs looked
bright. Since 2014, the changes in Philadelphia drug policy have proven to be beneficial in many ways. While lessening the stigma of drug use, the city policymakers have addressed the issue of prison overcrowding, increased city revenue through additional possession and public use citations, and joined the trend of decriminalizing marijuana. The city were open-minded to drug policy critics like, The High life: Club Kids, Harm and Drug Policy author Dina Perrone, and started to make quality changes that addressed the issues of the federal drug policy. As Philadelphia’s more balanced approach started to be backed by favorable and factual data, it grew momentum and influenced the actions of not only the city limits of Philadelphia, but of the entire state of Pennsylvania.
In two years, Philadelphia was able to start a state-wide movement of decriminalizing a recreational drug, which then led to a domino effect of the entire state joining a nation-wide policy change for using recreational drugs as a way of benefiting their economies as well as the well-being of their citizens. If elected officials were to continue on with the balanced approach, then there is no limit to the success it could bring to national, state, and city
governance. While the results produced by Philadelphia on drug policy have strengthened the overall drug reform of the nation, those efforts would be insignificant without the oversight and cooperation of the federal government. With federalism alive and well in the United States, the Constitution and acts of Congress will continue to trump state statutes and city ordinances. For any city to make long-term changes, there has to be a good working relationship with the federal side. Lucky for today and the future’s society, the relationship between city policymakers and the federal government has proven to be stronger than ever, at least in regards to drugs.