Marijuana Policy Summary

Over the past decade, there has been substantial debate over policies regarding the legalization of marijuana for medical and recreational use in the United States. In recent years, even the nation’s capital legalized the use of recreational cannabis. These sweeping changes have led to extensive debate over the power of states and the national government in creating laws to regulate these once-illegal substances. This debate presents a significant policy problem that can be analyzed from the perspective of Deborah Stone, author of Public Paradox The Art of Political Decision Making. Stone offers five methods that can be used to study policy problems: they are symbols, numbers, causes, interests, and decisions (Stone 2012, vii). Each method

One of the most significant points in Armentano’s argument is his presentation of a Pew Research Center poll that reports, “60 percent of Americans believe the government ‘should not enforce federal marijuana laws in states that allow use’” (Wanlund 2015, 881). His presentation of a public opinion poll in which the numerical majority concur with his argument makes his argument seem well supported. When addressing why this method of problem definition can be so effective, Stone notes, “People react to being counted or measured… The process of counting something makes people notice it more” (Stone 2012, 203). Measuring evidence in numerical terms, according to the author of Policy Paradox, is an extremely effective way of persuading the public to see problems with policy proposals. Although quantitative measurements are easily manipulated and polls like the one Armentano uses as evidence can be perceived in different perspectives, Stone notes the effectiveness of numbers in defining policy

Stone employs this device for defining policy problems as a method of creating an argument in the polis based on the root causes of an issue (Stone 2012, 225). With this method, debates can be formed on the premise of why the other side is wrong, and from there be built on the principles of the other side is correct. This model is used in Armentano’s essay when he presents several reasons for why the federal government’s involvement in this issue is harmful to Americans. He argues, “Enforcement of cannabis prohibition financially burdens taxpayers, encroaches on civil liberties, engenders disrespect for the law… and disproportionately affects young people and communities of color” (Wanlund 2015, 881). By highlighting the various negative aspects of government involvement in these policies, Armentano challenges those that oppose state sponsored policies, while simultaneously placing blame on the government for these policy problems. Armentano supports his argument by highlighting the causes of this problem, which are exacerbated by federal policies as opposed to state regulations in this