four response and comments PADM-02

Response two-PADM-02

There are several key elements of Nevada’s policy regarding the legalization of marijuana, which was passed via Ballot Question 2 (Q2) in November 2016 and takes effect in January of 2018.  The law is referred to as the “Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act” and declares that the use of marijuana by persons aged 21 or older, should be legal and its cultivation and sale regulated like other legal businesses (Initiative to regulate and Tax Marijuana, 2016).  The Governor’s Task Force (GTF) on the Implementation of Q2 released a report in May of 2017 that outlines public safety, education and research, law enforcement, advertising, packaging, labeling, potency limitations, distribution and transportation, cultivation operations, taxation, and licensing requirements.  For the purpose of analyzing the key aspects of Q2, I will focus on the law enforcement and public safety sections of the implementation policy.  Public Safety concerns such as the Clean Air Act, preventing distribution to minors, and amending the Nevada revised statute to allow Nevada health authorities to regulate the production and labeling of edible marijuana products were addressed by the governor’s task force working group.

Under the law enforcement policy section several questions are addressed, such as driving under the influence of drugs and statutory limitations.  Regarding driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) the public policy recommendations were: an aggressive media campaign to educate the motoring public, support Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) and Advanced Roadside Impairment Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) training, improve data collection through increased drug screening during forensic testing of blood, and ensure that Nevada’s per se limits are consistent with scientific findings as research and data are collected (GTF, 2017).  These recommendations are based upon the promotion of the well-being of Nevada residents and ensuring that youth are protected from risks associated with marijuana use (GFT, 2017).  DUID policy centers on using a media campaign to inform the public of the effects of impairment and that driving under the influence is commensurate to the consequences of DUI alcohol.  The use of media to communicate public policy highlights its importance in the policy making process and the role it plays in policy implementation. 

Several other parties also greatly affected the decisions on how to implement Q2; these include interest groups like the Marijuana Policy Project, governor appointed working groups, and law enforcement agencies.  The combined efforts of these policy actors represents group theory in action.  Group theory posits that policy decisions are the product of a struggle between interest groups who fight each other to enact legislation favorable to them (Lesson, 2018).  Question 2 started out as an initiative, which enables citizens to bypass their state legislature by placing proposed statutes, and in some cases, constitutional amendments on the ballot (McCann, 2012).  Some scholars argue that this process weakens legislatures and allows interest groups greater control over policy making, though the process does ensure greater responsiveness in the case of legislative inaction (Djupe and Olson, 2007).  In the case of Q2, the interest group the Marijuana Policy Project was instrumental in getting the initiative on the ballot via the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol, which has supported legalization of marijuana campaigns in several other states, including Arizona, California, and Maine (Question 2 Fact Sheet, 2016).  Question 2 also offers insight into the group theory when opposition to Question 2 is taken into consideration; the Nevada Resort Association, Nevada Sherriff’s and Chief’s Association, Carson City Chamber of Commerce and the Church of Latter Day Saints all opposed Q2.  An argument used by the opposition include calling attention to current efforts to improve K-12 education and performance, arguing that the legalization of a “mind-altering substance” would only hurt this effort (Rep. Pat Hickey, 2016).  As discussed in the Governor’s Task Force, the implementation of Q2 includes several recommendations to prevent the usage of marijuana by underage individuals such as  requiring medical marijuana establishments to provide security personnel, ID check stations, video surveillance, and locked access to inventory in all retail establishments, as well as the prevention of  retail marijuana advertising that would appeal to minors, and creating a structure for civil/and or criminal penalties for selling or giving marijuana to a person under 21 (GTF,2017).  This is one example of how the implementation of Q2 operates as a compromise between interest groups and individuals both for and against Q2.

Sources:

Governor’s Task Force on the Implementation of Question 2. (2017, May 30). Retrieved from 
https://tax.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/taxnvgov/Content/…/NVRM%20Reportv1.25

Fulstone, L., & Wadhams, J. (n.d.). Nevada Marijuana Legalization Initiative. Retrieved January 10, 2018, from 
https://www.nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/NevadaLawyer_Oct2016_MarijuanaLegalization

Working to Reform Marijuana Laws. (n.d.). Retrieved January 10, 2018, from 
http://norml.org/laws/item/nevada-penalties-2

Project, M. P. (n.d.). Nevada. Retrieved January 10, 2018, from 
https://www.mpp.org/states/nevada/

McCann, M. (2012). Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. Retrieved January 11, 2018, from 
http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/initiative-referendum-and-recall-overview.aspx

Djupe, P., & Olson, L. (2007). Religious Interests in Community Conflict. Retrieved January 11, 2018, from 
https://books.google.com/books?id=xRI1K_-DIooC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Fact Sheet on Question 2. (2016, September). Guinn Center for Policy Priorities. Retrieved January 11, 2018, from 
https://guinncenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Guinn-Center-Fact-Sheet-Q2

 Response three-PADM-02

 One of the policy topics I would like to look at has to do with the use of police body worn cameras (BWC). This issue started to heat up after many unjust shootings across the United States. Maryland looked to take quick action on this issue to better protect the public and the officers. Maryland has a police and training commission that oversees all police activity within the state. Whether you are local, state or county, you must be certified and abide by policy sent from the police and training commission I order to be a certified police officer that is legally allowed to have law enforcement powers in the state.

            With this policy, direction was handed down on the coverage limits that each department needed to come up with in order to abide by the police and training commissions policy, this included when it was to be turned on, tested, not used, how it can be used and many other categories (Maryland Police Training Commission, 2016). This reminded me of what many states use for car insurance, but in those instances, it is referred to as “minimum coverage”.

            Group theory can be defined by a struggle between interest groups that are trying to persuade elected officials in policy making decisions (APU, 2018).  In this instance the formation of Black Lives Mater, although lacking a clear agenda, did accomplish advocating heavily for unjust shootings. On the flip side of this issue police unions everywhere where trying to protect their officers from being constantly recorded at work, infringing on constitutional rights of the people and the officer (Nielsen, 2016).  Also in play is Political System Theory, this can be defined by the political key players in legislative/policy development being pressured by public opinion to make change (APU, 2018). In the protests across the county that went on for months, the political arena jumped on the opportunity to express their side of the issue. Both of these are evident in the policy making decision, they actually both go hand in hand, which is likely why there has been support of the use of BWC’s by both the officers and the general public (Goetschel & Peha ,2017).

            Other facts about BWC’s are that that drastically reduce public complaints on the police, this is likely because of the public knowing that frivolous complaints will no longer be justifiable as they would all be recorded (Goetschel & Peha ,2017). Most importantly, this policy is saving lives and is likely curving the over aggressive officer who would have gotten away with murder previously. This was a needed policy change and would not have been able to be done if not for the interest groups bringing light to the situation, the media then covering it and of course the political arena seeing it as a chance to energize their base from their perspective viewpoints. However, this likely is one of only few times that everyone is a winner with this system.

            Maryland policy specifically directs each agency to leave the policy as a living document that can be altered overtime. This allows the agency to come up with best practices and adjust to current issues and trends.

American Public University (2018) Lesson 2: Theories of politics and public policy. In PADM530: Public Policy: Winter 2018 Session B [Online Class Lesson]. Retrieved from apus.realizeithome.com.

Goetschel, M., & Peha, J. M. (2017). Police perceptions of body-worn cameras. American Journal of Criminal Justice : AJCJ, 42(4), 698-726. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/10.1007/s12103-017-94

Maryland Police Training Commission. (2016). Body-worn Camera Policy. Retrieved January 11, 2018, from 
http://mdle.net/pdf/BWC_Policy_1-8-16

Nielsen, E. H. (2016). Fourth amendment implications of police-worn body cameras. St. Mary’s Law Journal, 48(1), 115.

 RESPONSE FOUR-PADM-02

The policy that I have chosen to analyze this week is the New York State reorganization of Medicaid under Governor Cuomo’s Medicaid Redesign Team, and the Affordable Care Act. Under the expansion, New York received $7.72 billion in federal funding in 2015, and in the following year over two million New York State residents were able to get coverage under the Medicaid expansion. As of 2017, Medicaid covers over 6 million residents, which equals to about one third of the state’s population. Most of New York States enrollees are children and non-disabled adults, however, disabled adults, children and seniors are eligible for enrollment. In addition, with the Medicaid Managed Care (MMC) plans, the state is now able to provide behavioral health services, as well as Health and Recovery Plans for those with substance abuse disorders and those with serious mental illnesses (Bachrach, 2017).

The changes seen in New York State’s Medicaid were shaped by a few factors, the first being the policy and administrative reforms generated by Governor Cuomo’s Medicaid Redesign Team which was implemented in 2014. Another being the Affordable Care Act implemented in 2010, which established greater eligibility for Medicaid, while also increasingly federal support for states by covering all costs of the expansion (Patchias, & Samis, 2014). The Medicaid Redesign Team was issued as an Executive Order from Governor Cuomo, and was made up of 25 members, appointed by the Governor. The team included individuals with various expertise, including State Officers, members of the New York State Senate, and those with experience in the healthcare industry. The redesign team was tasked to find ways to save money within the Medicaid program due to the vast number of New Yorkers now utilizing the inclusive healthcare coverage, which Cuomo stated, would give New York State tax payers a much-needed break (New York State). The initiatives that followed were the introduction of a cap on state spending for Medicaid, and program cuts which were made wherever necessary (Patchias, & Samis, 2014).

I believe that Institutional Theory was present during the implementation of the Medicaid restructuring, as well as the creation of the Medicaid Redesign Team. This is due to the change made by one institution, the federal government, which had an effect on the policy and decision making of New York State legislators in relation to the spending on Medicaid. When the Affordable Care Act was enacted, New York could not have predicted the vast number of enrollees that would opt in for Medicaid. In response to the federal governments new mandate, a cap on Medicaid spending, as well as the program cuts, were created as a way to lessen the financial burden felt by the residents, which was due to the coercive pressures brought about by the Affordable Car Act. This pressure shaped the adoption of new policies in order to curb the negative responses felt by New York residents, whose taxes were substantially increased from the Medicaid expansion (Keavney, 2018).  

 
References

Bachrach, Deborah. (October 19, 2017). The Federal Medicaid Agenda: Considerations and Concerns for New York State. Retrieved January 11, 2018, from https://mhanys.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/TheFederalMedicaidAgenda-MHANYSKeynote .

Keavney, Elizabeth. (2018). PADM530 Public Policy. Lesson Two: Theories of Politics and Public Policy. American Public University System. January, 01, 2018.

New York State. (2014, September 28). Governor Cuomo Issues Executive Order Creating Medicaid Redesign Team. Retrieved January 11, 2018, from 
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-issues-executive-order-creating-medicaid-redesign-team
.

Patchias, Elizabeth M., & Samis, Sarah K. L. (2014). New York’ s Medicaid in Transition: A New Primer for 2014. Medicaid Institute at United Hospital Fund.  Retrieved January 11, 2018, from file:///C:/Users/Johnson/Downloads/Medicaid_in_Transition-final20140714 .