Regulation of marijuana for recreational purposes: Policy conflict over the legalization in various policy settings of Colorado and the Czech Republic

The article examines the policy conflict surrounding the issue of regulating marijuana for recreational purposes. Although crucial in the design and implementation of public policies, policy conflict is an underlying phenomenon that tends to be neglected in existing theories. This paper, therefore, works with the Policy Conflict Framework (PCF), which brings policy conflict to the center of the action. The PCF in this study is applied to describe and explain policy conflict's characteristics in distinct drug policy subsystems of Colorado and the Czech Republic. The unit of analysis is an episode of a conflict, a situation of collective action where two or more people experience a disagreement on something related to a policy issue that could be ongoing or resolved. In Colorado, the major political decision to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes is behind, and the policy is already implemented. On the other hand, in the Czech Republic, the decriminalization policy towards recreational marijuana is applied, and legalization is being discussed among experts. However, how different is the actual conflict over substance legalization in both systems? And is it based more on moral values or objective information? The author uses data from expert interviews with similar actors in both political systems and focuses on the moral aspect of the policy issue. Policy issues involve some degree of potential societal benefits or risks. Perceptions of the risks and benefits associated with a particular policy issue are likely to shape the characteristics of the conflict. For some people, the conflicts may involve fundamental/core values, religious views, and beliefs about what is "right or wrong". Moral political decision-making is then based more on values, while nonmoral political decision-making is based more on objective information. The drama between competing political perspectives may cause people to have less information about how a policy will affect them at the local level, which may be undesirable. This comparative research aims to understand better the nature/characteristics of political conflicts regarding marijuana legalization in different policy settings. It is assumed that although the political system and regulation differ, the policy conflict over the morality of the policy issue is very similar in both cases and shows common features of argumentation between the actors involved.