For decades , California has been at the forefront of marijuana legalization . In 1996 , it was the first state to legalize medical marijuana . Then , in November 2016 , California voters legalized adult recreational use of marijuana by approving Proposition 64 , which allows individuals over 21 years of age to possess , cultivate and sell marijuana . There are now eight states , plus the District of Columbia , where recreational marijuana is legal .
MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION Means More , Not Less , Training Needed for Officers
By : Leischen Stelter , editor of In Public Safety
For decades , California has been at the forefront of marijuana legalization . In 1996 , it was the first state to legalize medical marijuana . Then , in November 2016 , California voters legalized adult recreational use of marijuana by approving Proposition 64 , which allows individuals over 21 years of age to possess , cultivate and sell marijuana . There are now eight states , plus the District of Columbia , where recreational marijuana is legal .
Marijuana remains a Schedule I drug under federal law ; however , California lawmakers are aiming to change that too . In September 2017 , lawmakers submitted a proposal to the federal government requesting a reclassification of cannabis , which would further lessen the penalties for possession . Proposed legislation on the federal level also calls for removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act .
HOW LEGALIZATION HAS CHANGED MARIJUANA LAW ENFORCEMENT
The legalization of marijuana has put law enforcement in a conflicted position said Keith Graves , who has a master ’ s degree in criminal justice from American Military University and recently retired after 29 years as an officer in the San Francisco Bay area . Graves was the 2016 California Narcotics Officer of the Year and has been a Drug Recognition Expert ( DRE ) instructor for 25 years .
Another deterrent for drug enforcement is that many district attorneys ( DA ) aren ’ t prosecuting marijuana
12 California Police Chief | www . californiapolicechiefs . org intoxication cases because there ’ s a lack of consensus throughout the state on how to go about it . For example , in cases of driving under the influence ( DUI ), many DAs want a concrete number . “ The per se limit is . 08 for an alcohol DUI charge , but for marijuana there ’ s not a per se limit ,” said Graves . “ The case depends on what an officer sees combined with field sobriety tests , but DAs are often scared to prosecute without clear numbers .”
Technology doesn ’ t seem to be providing the answers yet , either . While there are some oral swab test kits , they can be unreliable for testing the presence of THC , or more specifically , impairment from recent use . For example , if someone consumes a THC product without smoking it , they may test negative even though they have taken the drug . In addition , marijuana metabolizes in a way that stays in the system for a long time , so even if someone tests positive , it ’ s difficult to determine if it was used recently or days ago .
Therefore , the justice system must rely on officers ’ observations for assessments of intoxication . That ’ s why it ’ s critical , more than ever , for agencies to have highly trained , drug-recognition experts who have the skills and credentials to verify drug intoxication .
AMENDED DRUG RECOGNITION TRAINING
Agencies have been retooling their drug training programs to certify as many officers as possible . Ideally , all officers would be certified as drug recognition experts ( DRE ), but that ’ s just not practical , said Graves . DRE