Tiempos de cambios: Estados Unidos, Latinoamérica y Cuba ante los problemas de Seguridad Global
miércoles, 27 de agosto de 2014
Report: Washington's Marijuana Legalization Grows Knowledge, Not Just Pot
New WOLA/Brookings report analyzes legal marijuana program in Washington state
WOLA/Brookings Report
August 25, 2014 By Philip A. Wallach, Fellow, Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution
On November 6, 2012, voters in Washington and Colorado made the
momentous and almost entirely novel choice to legalize and regulate
recreational marijuana. While many places around the world have tried
out forms of marijuana decriminalization or legalized medical uses, none
had ventured to make the production, distribution and recreational use
of the drug legal, let alone erect a comprehensive, state-directed
regulatory system to supervise the market. In spite of the lack of
experience, and in spite of a clear conflict with federal drug law,
solid majorities in Washington and Colorado decided that their states
should lead the way through experimentation. (In 2013, Uruguay would
follow.) The opening of state-legal marijuana shops has been a reality
in Colorado since January, and has finally come to pass in Washington as
of July 8.
While Colorado is justifiably garnering headlines with its
ambitiously rapid (and, in many respects, impressive) legalization
rollout,2 there is a case to be made that Washington is undertaking the
more radical and far-reaching reform. It is, in effect, attempting not
just to change the way the state regulates marijuana, but also to
develop tools by which to judge reform and to show that those tools can
be relevant amid the hurly-burly of partisan political debate.
Washington has launched two initiatives. One is about drug policy; the
other is about knowledge. In the world of drug policy, and for that
matter in the world of public administration more generally, this is
something fairly new under the sun.
This second reform, though less heralded than the attention-grabbing
fact of legalization, is in many ways just as bold. Washington’s
government is taking its role as a laboratory of democracy very
seriously, tuning up its laboratory equipment and devoting resources to
tracking its experiment in an unusually meticulous way. Several
innovative features are especially noteworthy:
A portion of the excise tax revenues from marijuana sales will fund
research on the reform’s effects and on how its social costs can be
effectively mitigated. In effect, the state has built test equipment
into its policy reform from day one, with a dedicated funding stream to
provide continuity and political independence.
Coordination of research efforts is taking place across multiple
state agencies, including the Department of Social and Health Services,
the Department of Health, and the Liquor Control Board. Instead of
relying on just one point of view or information source, the state is
focusing many lenses on the issue, attempting to create a multifaceted
picture.
A cost-benefit analysis is to be conducted by the state’s in-house
think tank, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP),
and will be nearly unprecedented in its scope and duration. If well
executed, this effort will provide a yardstick for success that can help
focus and discipline the political debate.
By combining these techniques, Washington’s policymakers seek to
empower themselves not only to proactively regulate legal marijuana but
to proactively inform and influence the informational battles that will
surround legal marijuana. That is no mean feat in a policy area so full
of passionate, and often intemperate, advocates. As the battle lines
harden in the information wars between legalization’s champions and
critics, the state’s knowledge-building efforts offer its officials the
chance to transcend the breathless rhythms of the news cycle and set
their sights on more consequential time horizons. Reformers across the
country—in marijuana policy and beyond—would do well to learn from this
second experiment as much as from the first.
This paper outlines Washington’s side-by-side experiments: the
marijuana experiment and the knowledge experiment. It will weigh the
potential and the pitfalls of the state’s knowledge experiment. And it
will offer some thoughts on how to get the most out of Washington’s
innovations—both for those who care about drug policy and for those who
care about making policy reform of any sort work better. To read the full report, please click here.
August 25, 2014
By Philip A. Wallach, Fellow, Governance Studies, The Brookings Institution
On November 6, 2012, voters in Washington and Colorado made the momentous and almost entirely novel choice to legalize and regulate recreational marijuana. While many places around the world have tried out forms of marijuana decriminalization or legalized medical uses, none had ventured to make the production, distribution and recreational use of the drug legal, let alone erect a comprehensive, state-directed regulatory system to supervise the market. In spite of the lack of experience, and in spite of a clear conflict with federal drug law, solid majorities in Washington and Colorado decided that their states should lead the way through experimentation. (In 2013, Uruguay would follow.) The opening of state-legal marijuana shops has been a reality in Colorado since January, and has finally come to pass in Washington as of July 8.
While Colorado is justifiably garnering headlines with its ambitiously rapid (and, in many respects, impressive) legalization rollout,2 there is a case to be made that Washington is undertaking the more radical and far-reaching reform. It is, in effect, attempting not just to change the way the state regulates marijuana, but also to develop tools by which to judge reform and to show that those tools can be relevant amid the hurly-burly of partisan political debate. Washington has launched two initiatives. One is about drug policy; the other is about knowledge. In the world of drug policy, and for that matter in the world of public administration more generally, this is something fairly new under the sun.
This second reform, though less heralded than the attention-grabbing fact of legalization, is in many ways just as bold. Washington’s government is taking its role as a laboratory of democracy very seriously, tuning up its laboratory equipment and devoting resources to tracking its experiment in an unusually meticulous way. Several innovative features are especially noteworthy:
- A portion of the excise tax revenues from marijuana sales will fund
research on the reform’s effects and on how its social costs can be
effectively mitigated. In effect, the state has built test equipment
into its policy reform from day one, with a dedicated funding stream to
provide continuity and political independence.
- Coordination of research efforts is taking place across multiple
state agencies, including the Department of Social and Health Services,
the Department of Health, and the Liquor Control Board. Instead of
relying on just one point of view or information source, the state is
focusing many lenses on the issue, attempting to create a multifaceted
picture.
- A cost-benefit analysis is to be conducted by the state’s in-house
think tank, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP),
and will be nearly unprecedented in its scope and duration. If well
executed, this effort will provide a yardstick for success that can help
focus and discipline the political debate.
By combining these techniques, Washington’s policymakers seek to empower themselves not only to proactively regulate legal marijuana but to proactively inform and influence the informational battles that will surround legal marijuana. That is no mean feat in a policy area so full of passionate, and often intemperate, advocates. As the battle lines harden in the information wars between legalization’s champions and critics, the state’s knowledge-building efforts offer its officials the chance to transcend the breathless rhythms of the news cycle and set their sights on more consequential time horizons. Reformers across the country—in marijuana policy and beyond—would do well to learn from this second experiment as much as from the first.This paper outlines Washington’s side-by-side experiments: the marijuana experiment and the knowledge experiment. It will weigh the potential and the pitfalls of the state’s knowledge experiment. And it will offer some thoughts on how to get the most out of Washington’s innovations—both for those who care about drug policy and for those who care about making policy reform of any sort work better.
To read the full report, please click here.