Journal of Student Research 2019

Journal of Student Research 124 feasible for marijuana. Regardless of the federal law stating the illegality of marijuana, numerous states have medicalized and legalized cannabis without the federal government intervening in the state’s endeavors. This had led to many successful uses of cannabis, including taxation which fuels some states infrastructure and education. In this way, Dr. Robert S Croswell—a Maine psychiatrist—proposes the same process for illicit opioids, such as heroin, which he believes could lead to less addition and overdose deaths by creating government restrictions and therefore standards on the substance (Telegram, 2015). Complicating this theory is a report published by Addiction which found that legalizing illicit opioids would not reduce overdose fatalities (Darke & Farrell, 2014). Darke studied the complications that would diminish the effect of legalizing illicit opioids, from the substance contents of pure heroin that is diluted with synthtic impurities, and complications due to the wide variety of distribution methods that opioid comes in (heroin, pills, etc.). Given these factors, the only proper policy they can recommend would be injection-assisted treatment, which is improbable on a state-wide scale.This policy option, while legally feasible, is not technically nor economically feasible. The number of patients seeking injection-assisted rehabilitation would rival the cost of the average prisoner in the current US industrial complex to be efficient at $30,620 (“Annual Determination of Average Cost of Incarceration,” 2015). Darke also notes that injection-assistance is not culturally feasible. People who receive injection-assisted treatment in a controlled environment are not the ones with a potential for overdose (Darke & Farrell, 2014). If California wishes to legalize its opioids, intense budget reallocation must be made to fund this implementation to affect a small population of users, thus eliminating this alternative as an effective policy solution. Another judicial option in terms of decreasing opioid related deaths and HIV transmissions would be to decriminalize illicit opioids in California. This solution differs from legalization because it does not legalize the substance, merely shift treatment of users from punitive—via the judicial system—to rehabilitative. Rather, those who would be convicted are now offered treatment and re-entry into society without the stigmization of being previously incarcerated. However, decriminalization in the United States does not attempt to reverse past convinctions for the substance. One example of this solution is a policy implemented in Portugal in 2001 that decriminalized all drugs. In 2009 The CATO Institute did an empirical study of the effects of decriminalization policy and found surprising results. Greenwald found that, “Although post-decriminalization usage rates have remained roughly the same or even decreased slightly when compared with other EU states, drug-related pathologies — such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage — have decreased dramatically” (Greenwald, 2009). Decriminalizing Decriminalizing Opioids

125 A Case Study of California’s Syringe Exchange Programs on Illicit Opioid Use opioids, and potentially all drugs, would be instrumental in making Syringe Exchange Programs more effective. The main aim of this policy is to further the work that SEPs already do: treating those who use drugs like human beings and offering rehabilitative services. This would be one of the first policies to change the nature of the judicial system for the past half-century: from punitive to rehabilitative. The main problem with this policy alternative, besides the economic cost of offering rehabilitative service, is the numerous drug convictions in California. Decriminalizing opioids would require revisiting the convictions of many currently incarcerated in California, and it is not likely to be policitcally feasible to do so. Constituents are unlikely to support reversing convictions and releasing prisoners. Historically, this has also been a problem with the legalization of cannabis. As of 2018, 46.2% of people in jail are serving time in the US due to drug related crimes, and the decriminalization of illicit opioids would raise questions about not only those serving time for heroin and other illicit opioids, but on marijuana charges (“BOP Statistics: Inmate Offenses,” n.d.). Thus, despite the ethical and overall feasibility of this alternative, the political feasibility is dubious. The implementation of this alternative would force the federal government to address marijauna’s current illegal status as a Schedule I drug and the entire prison-industrial complex that benefits financially from drug-related incarcerations. The final policy alternative is much smaller in scope and lends itself to the pragmatic nature of American government and society. The implementation of medical cannabis resources at current California Syringe Exchange Program facilities would decrease the number of opioid-related deaths by stopping addiction in early users. The Adult Use of Marijuana Act provides people over the age of 21 with legal possession of 28.5 grams of cannabis or 8 grams on concentrated cannabis (Cannibas: licensure, 2017). Those who are between 18-21 and under 18 that wish to use cannabis without a medical marijuana identification card will be adjugated under the law for possession. For those wish to use cannibas under the age of 21, medical marijuana identification cards are vital. However, there are limitations of who can apply and receive an identification card. Senate Bill 420 provides context of ranging conditions to receive an identification card and are as follows: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), anorexia, arthritis, cachexia, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, migraine, persistent muscle spasms, seizures, severe nausea, any other chronic or persistent medical symptom that either: Substantially limits the ability of the person to conduct one or more major life activities as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; or if not alleviated, may cause serious harm to the patient’s safety or physical or mental health (Medical Marijuana, 2003). Implementing Medical Cannabis Resources at SEPs

Table of Contents

Table of Contents