My interest in this subject was peeked due to the recent debate going across the country about marijuana legalization and specifically the negative toll prohibition has taken on our society. Hundreds of thousands of American's are taken away from their families, careers and basically their life because they were caught with marijuana or caught using it. Most of these victims are small time offenders who aren't criminals but just normal everyday people who just like to burn one up. This also has a great affect on my values. I do not believe that these people deserve the harsh punishment they get for consuming a naturally growing herb that less harmful than both alcohol and tobacco, which are legal and in some instances marketed heavily to encourage people to use. Both of these products have been shown to cause numerous problems both short term and long term. This includes numerous diseases like lung cancer, liver cancer, and alcoholism among many others. On the other hand, marijuana has been shown to help fight and almost cure many serious illnesses like epilepsy, glaucoma and cancer which is just hitting the top of the long list. I am an advocate of both legalization and decriminalization of marijuana because from research and evidence, the pros far outweigh the cons. Also history has shown that prohibition never ends well (prohibition in the 1920's) and causes more problems than it solves. I have done extensive research on this for my own reasons and for other classes in the past so I am very up to date with the issues and facts that deal with marijuana decriminalization. 

Marijuana decriminalization led to a decrease in marijuana possession arrests but serious charges like trafficking and distribution continued to remain about the same. Overall, there were not any radical changes due to decriminalization but just the elimination of jail time for small and first time offenders. Also it did not effect the rates of use. The article uses statistics from research done by states after they had decriminalized marijuana.

The article seems to be taking a neutral stance on the matter with it's main objective being to present facts and statistics that deal with the effects of decriminalization. It does not seem to have any bias neither does it seem that the journal would gain anything from this. It is solely presenting facts.

The article is published in a a public health policy journal so it is meant to to be used as research in planning and implementing policies regarding public health. Once again, there does not seem to be bias. The author was the director of many different research teams like substance abuse, and is also a professor on public health policy. 

The current prohibition has actually led to an increase in marijuana related crimes like selling which heavily involves drug cartels as they make money from the prohibition of marijuana. Legalizing Marijuana would have a great impact on the selling and trading of marijuana illegally by drug cartels and thus would negatively impact their business and reduce it. Decriminalization will also lead to crime and arrest drops. Illegal business that rely on selling marijuana due to prohibition would go out of business or at least lose a great amount of money and business.

The article is posted on a website that deals with marijuana law reform so it is expected to be biased towards decriminalization and would benefit from decriminalization. The website belongs to an organization that is an advocate of reforming marijuana laws. So the article does have stake and interest in decriminalization.

The author has a Ph.D. in criminal justice and works for JFA institute which works in criminal justice reform. He wrote this article for an organization that clearly has interest's legalization and decriminalization. There does seem to be bias as this is written for an organization that wants to reform marijuana laws but the facts and research are given in an ethical way. The main job seems to be to deliver the facts and research.

Decriminalization will have positive effects for individuals and the society as a whole because marijuana possession will be more of a civil infraction and they will receive a civil citation like a traffic ticket. This avoids the process of going to jail, going to court and appealing for bail and having to carry a criminal record throughout life. It reduces the amount of money involved in the criminal justice system that is meant for prosecution of marijuana related offenses. 

The article is written in a law journal which makes it seem as though the main reason for it's existence is to analyze the effects of decriminalization based on research and data. Although it being a law journal does indicate that they might have some kind of stake in decriminalization. But more than anything this article is just analyzing the effects of decriminalization in Nebraska to predict the outcomes in the other states that take the same path.

There does not seem to be any significant bias because the article is showing research and analysis of the effects of decriminalization. The author is a lawyer of Nebraska so there is some credibility built there from his knowledge of the criminal justice system and the laws that go with it to make it work. The Source and the author both are credible and reliable due to their profession and knowledge regarding the issue that is being written about. 

The research question is arguable because the main argument here is why marijuana should be decriminalized and there are many studies conducted that show the effects of decriminalization on individuals and society in different degrees. Also others could argue that it shouldn't be decriminalized as this side also had a fairly equal amount of research conducted to back their views. All three of my sources agree that costs and arrests decline with decriminalization because small time offenders aren't given a criminal charge but instead a civil charge much like a traffic ticket. It also eliminates the possibility of jail time and the police will no longer search for marijuana related offenses that aren't criminal in nature so this reduces cost. Disagreements come up with things related to the degree of impact on society, rates of use and cost. All the sources share a very similar view which also aligns with my view on the argument. I think I would need to make my research question more specific as the current one is very broad. 
