why marijuanas should be illegal essay

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.110(6); Nov-Dec 2013

More Reasons States Should Not Legalize Marijuana: Medical and Recreational Marijuana: Commentary and Review of the Literature

Recent years have seen substantial shifts in cultural attitudes towards marijuana for medical and recreational use. Potential problems with the approval, production, dispensation, route of administration, and negative health effects of medical and recreational marijuana are reviewed. Medical marijuana should be subject to the same rigorous approval process as other medications prescribed by physicians. Legalizing recreational marijuana may have negative public health effects.

Introduction

Recent years have seen a cultural shift in attitudes towards marijuana. At the time of this writing, medical marijuana is legal in 20 states and the District of Columbia; recreational marijuana is now legal in Washington and Colorado. A substantial and growing literature documents legalized marijuana may have adverse effects on individual and public health.

Medical Use of Marijuana

The term ‘medical marijuana’ implies that marijuana is like any other medication prescribed by a physician. Yet the ways in which medical marijuana has been approved, prescribed, and made available to the public are very different from other commercially available prescription drugs. These differences pose problems unrecognized by the public and by many physicians.

Lack of Evidence for Therapeutic Benefit

In the United States, commercially available drugs are subject to rigorous clinical trials to evaluate safety and efficacy. Data appraising the effectiveness of marijuana in conditions such as HIV/AIDS, epilepsy, and chemotherapy-associated vomiting is limited and often only anecdotal. 1 , 2 To date, there has been only one randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of smoked marijuana for any of its potential indications, which showed that marijuana was superior to placebo but inferior to Ondansetron in treating nausea. 3 Recent reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration find insufficient evidence to support the use of smoked marijuana for a number of potential indications, including pain related to rheumatoid arthritis, 4 dementia, 5 ataxia or tremor in multiple sclerosis, 6 and cachexia and other symptoms in HIV/AIDS. 2 This does not mean, of course, that components of marijuana do not have potential therapeutic effects to alleviate onerous symptoms of these diseases; but, given the unfavorable side effect profile of marijuana, the evidence to justify use in these conditions is still lacking.

Contamination, Concentration & Route of Administration

Unlike any other prescription drug used for medical purposes, marijuana is not subject to central regulatory oversight. It is grown in dispensaries, which, depending on the state, have regulatory standards ranging from strict to almost non-existent. The crude marijuana plant and its products may be contaminated with fungus or mold. 7 This is especially problematic for immunocompromised patients, 8 including those with HIV/AIDS or cancer. 9 Furthermore, crude marijuana contains over 60 active cannabinoids, 10 few of which are well studied. Marijuana growers often breed their plants to alter the concentrations of different chemicals compounds. For instance, the concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the principal psychoactive ingredient, is more than 20-fold more than in marijuana products used several decades ago. Without rigorous clinical trials, we have no way of knowing which combinations of cannabinoids may be therapeutic and which may be deleterious. As marijuana dispensaries experiment by breeding out different cannabinoids in order to increase the potency of THC, there may be unanticipated negative and lasting effects for individuals who smoke these strains.

Marijuana is the only ‘medication’ that is smoked, and, while still incompletely understood, there are legitimate concerns about long-term effects of marijuana smoke on the lungs. 11 , 12 Compared with cigarette smoke, marijuana smoke can result in three times the amount of inhaled tar and four times the amount of inhaled carbon-monoxide. 13 Further, smoking marijuana has been shown to be a risk factor for lung cancer in many 14 , 15 but not all 16 studies.

High Potential for Diversion

In some states, patients are permitted to grow their own marijuana. In addition to contributing to problems such as contamination and concentration as discussed above, this practice also invites drug diversion. Patients seeking to benefit financially may bypass local regulations of production and sell home-grown marijuana at prices lower than dispensaries. We do not allow patient to grow their own opium for treatment of chronic pain; the derivatives of opium, like marijuana, are highly addictive and thus stringently regulated.

Widespread “Off-label” Use

FDA-approved forms of THC (Dronabinol) and a THC-analog (Nabilone), both available orally, already exist. Indications for these drugs are HIV/AIDS cachexia and chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting. Unlike smoked, crude marijuana, these medications have been subject to randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trials. Yet despite these limited indications where marijuana compounds have a proven but modest effect in high-quality clinical trials, medical marijuana is used overwhelmingly for non-specific pain or muscle spasms. Recent data from Colorado show that 94% of patients with medical marijuana cards received them for treatment of “severe pain.” 17 Similar trends are evident in California. 18 Evidence for the benefit of marijuana in neuropathic pain is seen in many 19 - 21 but not all 22 clinical trials. There is no high-quality evidence, however, that the drug reduces non-neuropathic pain; this remains an indication for which data sufficient to justify the risks of medical marijuana is lacking. 4 , 23 – 25

If marijuana is to be ‘prescribed’ by physicians and used as a medication, it should be subject to the same rigorous approval process that other commercially available drugs undergo. Potentially therapeutic components of marijuana should be investigated, but they should only be made available to the public after adequately powered, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have demonstrated efficacy and acceptable safety profiles. Furthermore, these compounds should be administered in a way that poses less risk than smoking and dispensed via standardized and FDA-regulated pharmacies to ensure purity and concentration. Bypassing the FDA and approving ‘medicine’ at the ballot box sets a dangerous precedent. Physicians should be discouraged from recommending medical marijuana. Alternatively, consideration can be given to prescribing FDA-approved medicines (Dronabinol or Cesamet) as the purity and concentration of these drugs are assured and their efficacy and side effect profiles have been well documented in rigorous clinical trials.

Recreational Marijuana

The question of recreational marijuana is a broader social policy consideration involving implications of the effects of legalization on international drug cartels, domestic criminal justice policy, and federal and state tax revenue in addition to public health. Yet physicians, with a responsibility for public health, are experts with a vested interest in this issue. Recent legislation, reflecting changes in the public’s attitudes towards marijuana, has permitted the recreational use of marijuana in Colorado and Washington. Unfortunately, the negative health consequences of the drug are not prominent in the debate over legalizing marijuana for recreational use. In many cases, these negative effects are more pronounced in adolescents. A compelling argument, based on these negative health effects in both adolescents and adults, can be made to abort the direction society is moving with regards to the legalization of recreational marijuana.

Myth: Marijuana is Not Addictive

A growing myth among the public is that marijuana is not an addictive substance. Data clearly show that about 10% of those who use cannabis become addicted; this number is higher among adolescents. 26 Users who seek treatment for marijuana addiction average 10 years of daily use. 27 A withdrawal syndrome has been described, consisting of anxiety, restlessness, insomnia, depression, and changes in appetite 28 and affects as many as 44% of frequent users, 29 contributing to the addictive potential of the drug. This addictive potential may be less than that of opiates; but the belief, especially among adolescents, that the drug is not addictive is misguided.

Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders

Marijuana has been consistently shown to be a risk factor for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. 30 – 32 The association between marijuana and schizophrenia fulfills many, but not all, of the standard criteria for the epidemiological establishment of causation, including experimental evidence, 33 , 34 temporal relationship, 35 – 38 biological gradient, 30 , 31 , 39 and biological plausibility. 40 Genetic variation may explain why marijuana use does not strongly fulfill remaining criteria, such as strength of association and specificity. 41 , 42 As these genetic variants are explored and further characterized, marijuana use may be shown to cause or precipitate schizophrenia in a genetically vulnerable population. The risk of psychotic disorder is more pronounced when marijuana is used at an earlier age. 32 , 43

There is some evidence that compounds naturally found in marijuana have therapeutic benefit for symptoms of diseases such as HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, and cancer. If these compounds are to be used under the auspices of ‘medical marijuana,’ they should undergo the same rigorous approval process that other medications prescribed by physicians, including randomized, placebo- and active-controlled trials to evaluate safety and efficacy, not by popular vote or state legislature.

Effects on Cognition

Early studies suggested cognitive declines associated with marijuana (especially early and heavy use); these declines persisted long after the period of acute cannabis intoxication. 44 – 46 Recently, Meier and colleagues analyzed data from a prospective study which followed subjects from birth to age 38; their findings yielded supportive evidence that cannabis use, when begun during adolescence, was associated with cognitive impairment in multiple areas, including executive functioning, processing speed, memory, perceptual reasoning, and verbal comprehension. 47 Rogeberg 48 criticized the study’s methodology, claiming that the results were confounded by differences in socioeconomic status; this claim, however, was based on sub-analyses that used very small numbers. Additional sub-analyses 49 of the original study cohort showed that marijuana was just as prevalent in populations of higher socioeconomic status, suggesting that socioeconomic status was not a confounding variable. Any epidemiological study is subject to confounding biases and future research will be needed to clarify and quantify the relationship between cognitive decline and adolescent marijuana use. However, the findings of the original study by Meier et al show there is indeed an independent relationship between loss of intelligence and adolescent marijuana use. This finding, moreover, is consistent with prior studies. 44

Other Negative Health Effects

Substantial evidence exists suggesting that marijuana is harmful to the respiratory system. It is associated with symptoms of obstructive and inflammatory lung disease, 11 , 50 an increased risk of lung cancer, 14 , 15 and it is suspected to be associated with reduced pulmonary function in heavy users. 51 Further, its use has been associated with harmful effects to other organ systems, including the reproductive, 52 gastrointestinal, 53 and immunologic 10 , 54 systems.

Social Safety Implications: Effects on Driving

Marijuana impairs the ability to judge time, distance, and speed; it slows reaction time and reduces ability to track moving objects. 55 , 56 In many studies of drug-related motor vehicle fatalities, marijuana is the most common drug detected except for alcohol. 57 , 58 Based on post-mortem studies, Couch et al determined that marijuana was likely an impairing factor in as many fatal accidents as alcohol. 59 One study showed that in motor vehicle accidents where the driver was killed, recent marijuana use was detected in 12% of cases. 57 Other research confirms a significantly increased risk of motor vehicle fatalities in association with acute cannabis intoxication. 60

Risk Perception and Use in Adolescents

Marijuana use among adolescents has been increasing. Data that has tracked risk perception and use of marijuana among adolescents over decades clearly shows an inverse relationship; as adolescent risk perception wanes, marijuana use increases. 61 As more states legalize medical and recreational marijuana, risk perception is expected to decrease, causing the prevalence of use among adolescent to continue to rise. This is among the most concerning of issues about the drug’s legalization because so many of the negative effects of marijuana—including cognitive impairment and risk for short- and long-term psychosis— are heightened when used during adolescence.

There is some evidence that compounds naturally found in marijuana have therapeutic benefit for symptoms of diseases such as HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, and cancer. If these compounds are to be used under the auspices of ‘medical marijuana,’ they should undergo the same rigorous approval process that other medications prescribed by physicians, including randomized, placebo- and active-controlled trials to evaluate safety and efficacy, not by popular vote or state legislature. Furthermore, these therapeutic compounds should be administered via a route that minimizes long-term health risk (i.e., via oral pill) and should be dispensed by centrally regulated pharmacies to ensure the purity and concentration of the drug and allow for the recall of contaminated batches.

Marijuana for recreational use will have many adverse health effects. The drug is addictive, with mounting evidence for the existence of a withdrawal syndrome. Furthermore, it has been shown to have adverse effects on mental health, intelligence (including irreversible declines in cognition), and the respiratory system. Driving while acutely intoxicated with marijuana greatly increases the risk of fatal motor vehicle collision. Legalization for recreational use may have theoretical (but still unproven) beneficial social effects regarding issues such as domestic criminal justice policy, but these effects will not come without substantial public health and social costs. Currently there is a lack of resources devoted to educating physicians about this most commonly used illicit substance. The potential benefits and significant risks associated with marijuana use should be taught in medical schools and residency programs throughout the country.

Samuel T. Wilkinson, MD, is in the Department of Psychiatry at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Ct.

Contact: [email protected]

None reported.

2018 Theses Doctoral

Essays on Cannabis Legalization

Thomas, Danna Kang

Though the drug remains illegal at the federal level, in recent years states and localities have increasingly liberalized their marijuana laws in order to generate tax revenue and save resources on marijuana law enforcement. Many states have adopted some form of medical marijuana and/or marijuana decriminalization laws, and as of 2017, Washington, Colorado, Maine, California, Oregon, Massachusetts, Nevada, Alaska, and the District of Columbia have all legalized marijuana for recreational use. In 2016 recreational marijuana generated over $1.8 billion in sales. Hence, studying marijuana reforms and the policies and outcomes of early recreational marijuana adopters is an important area of research. However, perhaps due to the fact that legalized recreational cannabis is a recent phenomenon, a scarcity of research exists on the impacts of recreational cannabis legalization and the efficacy and efficiency of cannabis regulation. This dissertation aims to fill this gap, using the Washington recreational marijuana market as the primary setting to study cannabis legalization in the United States. Of first order importance in the regulation of sin goods such as cannabis is quantifying the value of the marginal damages of negative externalities. Hence, Chapter 1 (co-authored with Lin Tian) explores the impact of marijuana dispensary location on neighborhood property values, exploiting plausibly exogenous variation in marijuana retailer location. Policymakers and advocates have long expressed concerns that the positive effects of the legalization--e.g., increases in tax revenue--are well spread spatially, but the negative effects are highly localized through channels such as crime. Hence, we use changes in property values to measure individuals' willingness to pay to avoid localized externalities caused by the arrival of marijuana dispensaries. Our key identification strategy is to compare changes in housing sales around winners and losers in a lottery for recreational marijuana retail licenses. (Due to location restrictions, license applicants were required to provide an address of where they would like to locate.) Hence, we have the locations of both actual entrants and potential entrants, which provides a natural difference-in-differences set-up. Using data from King County, Washington, we find an almost 2.4% decrease in the value of properties within a 0.5 mile radius of an entrant, a $9,400 decline in median property values. The aforementioned retail license lottery was used to distribute licenses due to a license quota. Retail license quotas are often used by states to regulate entry into sin goods markets as quotas can restrict consumption by decreasing access and by reducing competition (and, therefore, increasing markups). However, license quotas also create allocative inefficiency. For example, license quotas are often based on the population of a city or county. Hence, licenses are not necessarily allocated to the areas where they offer the highest marginal benefit. Moreover, as seen in the case of the Washington recreational marijuana market, licenses are often distributed via lottery, meaning that in the absence of an efficiency secondary market for licenses, the license recipients are not necessarily the most efficient potential entrants. This allocative inefficiency is generated by heterogeneity in firms and consumers. Therefore, in Chapter 2, I develop a model of demand and firm pricing in order to investigate firm-level heterogeneity and inefficiency. Demand is differentiated by geography and incorporates consumer demographics. I estimate this demand model using data on firm sales from Washington. Utilizing the estimates and firm pricing model, I back out a non-parametric distribution of firm variable costs. These variable costs differ by product and firm and provide a measure of firm inefficiency. I find that variable costs have lower inventory turnover; hence, randomly choosing entrants in a lottery could be a large contributor to allocative inefficiency. Chapter 3 explores the sources of allocative inefficiency in license distribution in the Washington recreational marijuana market. A difficulty in studying the welfare effects of license quotas is finding credible counterfactuals of unrestricted entry. Therefore, I take a structural approach: I first develop a three stage model that endogenizes firm entry and incorporates the spatial demand and pricing model discussed in Chapter 2. Using the estimates of the demand and pricing model, I estimate firms' fixed costs and use data on locations of those potential entrants that did not win Washington's retail license lottery to simulate counterfactual entry patterns. I find that allowing firms to enter freely at Washington's current marijuana tax rate increases total surplus by 21.5% relative to a baseline simulation of Washington's license quota regime. Geographic misallocation and random allocation of licenses account for 6.6\% and 65.9\% of this difference, respectively. Moreover, as the primary objective of these quotas is to mitigate the negative externalities of marijuana consumption, I study alternative state tax policies that directly control for the marginal damages of marijuana consumption. Free entry with tax rates that keep the quantity of marijuana or THC consumed equal to baseline consumption increases welfare by 6.9% and 11.7%, respectively. I also explore the possibility of heterogeneous marginal damages of consumption across geography, backing out the non-uniform sales tax across geography that is consistent with Washington's license quota policy. Free entry with a non-uniform sales tax increases efficiency by over 7% relative to the baseline simulation of license quotas due to improvements in license allocation.

• Cannabis--Law and legislation
• Marijuana industry
• Drug legalization
• Drugs--Economic aspects

More About This Work

• DOI Copy DOI to clipboard

Home » Uncategorized » Five Reasons Why We Should Legalize Cannabis

The Yale Ledger is a student-led magazine showcasing content from around the Yale community.

If you are affiliated with the Yale student community and have an article you want to share, please email Layla Winston .

If you notice any spam or inappropriate content, please contact us so we can remove it.

• February 2024
• January 2024
• December 2023
• November 2023
• October 2023
• September 2023
• August 2023
• February 2023
• January 2023
• December 2022
• November 2022
• October 2022
• September 2022
• August 2022
• February 2022
• January 2022
• December 2021
• September 2021
• August 2021
• February 2021
• January 2021

Five Reasons Why We Should Legalize Cannabis

Cannabis use in the United States has had a long and complicated history. For decades, people who used cannabis were subject to social ostracization and criminal prosecution. However, attitudes toward cannabis have been evolving in recent years. An increasing number of states have started to legalize cannabis for medical or recreational use. This shift in policy has been driven by a variety of factors including changing public attitudes and the potential economic benefits of legalization. In this article, we will explore the potential benefits of legalizing cannabis in our country.

1. Legalization for the Environment

Legalizing cannabis can have significant benefits for the environment. When cannabis is grown illegally, it is often done in environmentally damaging ways, such as using chemical pesticides or clearing primary forests to make room for crops. Legalization could allow customers to support more environmental growers. This will incentivize more responsible growing practices, such as the use of organic farming methods or the use of renewable energy sources to power indoor grow operations. In addition, the culture of growing cannabis can help to discover and preserve precious marijuana seeds , increasing biodiversity and facilitating a deeper understanding of cannabis plants and their cultivation.

2. Legalization for Justice

Where cannabis is illegal, people are being arrested and charged for possession or sale, which leads to costly court cases and a burden on the criminal justice system. Legalization would free up law enforcement resources to focus on more serious crimes and simultaneously reduce the number of people incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses. This could help to reduce the overall prison population and save taxpayers money.

In addition, legalization can have significant benefits for justice and equity, particularly for marginalized communities that have been disproportionately affected by the criminalization of cannabis. Communities of color have been particularly affected by the war on drugs, with Black Americans being nearly four times more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession than white Americans, despite similar rates of use.

By regulating cannabis cultivation and sales, legalization can help to eliminate the black market and reduce the involvement of criminal organizations in the cannabis industry. This can lead to safer communities and reduced drug-related violence in communities that have been most affected by the criminalization of cannabis.

3. Legalization for Public Health

Cannabis has been shown to have many beneficial and therapeutic effects on both physical and mental health. However, people may be hesitant to seek medical marijuana treatment due to fear of legal repercussions if cannabis is illegal. Legalization can allow more people to enjoy better health outcomes. It can also promote the safer use of cannabis by educating the public on appropriate cannabis use and providing quality control measures for cannabis products. Legalization can also lead to increased research into potential medical applications of cannabis and could lead to the development of innovative treatments.

Another potential perk of cannabis legalization is that it could reduce the use of more harmful drugs. In the absence of cannabis, people may turn to more dangerous drugs like heroin or fentanyl to manage chronic pain or other conditions. By legalizing cannabis, we can provide a safer alternative for these individuals and could reduce the overall demand for these more dangerous drugs. States that have legalized cannabis found a decrease in opioid overdose deaths and hospitalizations, suggesting that cannabis are an effective alternative to prescription painkillers.

4. Legalization for the Economy

The legalization of cannabis can generate significant tax revenue for governments and create new economic opportunities. When cannabis is illegal, it is sold on the black market, and no taxes are collected on these sales. However, when it is legal, sales can be regulated, and taxes can be imposed on those sales. In states that have legalized cannabis, tax revenue from cannabis sales has been in the millions of dollars , with California registering a whopping $1.2 billion in cannabis tax revenue in 2021. This impressive income can be used to reduce budget deficits, fund various public services such as education and healthcare, and create new opportunities for investment in projects that revitalize the economy.

Aside from tax revenue, legalizing cannabis can create new jobs. The cannabis industry is a rapidly growing industry, and legalization could lead to the creation of new jobs in areas such as cultivation, processing, and retail sales. This can help to reduce unemployment and create new gainful opportunities for people who may have struggled to find employment in other industries. Legalization can also lead to increased investment in related industries, such as the development of new products or technologies to improve cannabis cultivation or the creation of new retail businesses. There are now several venture capital funds and investment groups that focus solely on cannabis-related enterprises.

5. Legalization for Acceptance

Finally, legalization could help reduce the stigma surrounding cannabis use. Before cannabis legalization, people who use the plant were often viewed as criminals or deviants. Legalization can help change this perception and lead to more open and honest conversations about cannabis use. Ultimately, legalization could lead to a more accepting and inclusive society where individuals are not judged or discriminated against for their personal and healthcare choices. By legalizing cannabis, we can harness the power of a therapeutic plant. Legalization can heal not just physical and mental ailments of individuals but also the social wounds that have resulted from its criminalization.

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Powered by WordPress / Academica WordPress Theme by WPZOOM

• Share full article

Advertisement

• December 14, 2022   •   40:31 The Libertarian Party Became Too Extreme for Me, So I Changed My Political Allegiance
• December 7, 2022   •   31:32 Should America Intervene in Haiti? ‘Go to Hell’ and Other Views
• November 30, 2022   •   34:51 How to Perform Normalcy — and Why the Democrats Should Give It a Try
• November 16, 2022   •   27:49 Has Donald Trump Lost His Grip on the Republican Party?
• November 9, 2022   •   26:31 Donald Trump Was the Midterm’s Biggest Loser
• November 2, 2022   •   35:21 The Price of $5 Donations: Is Small-Dollar Fund-Raising Doing More Harm Than Good?
• October 26, 2022   •   36:21 ‘Maybe Gen Z Is Just Kinder’: How America’s Youngest Voters Are Shaping Politics
• October 19, 2022   •   31:24 Has Polling Broken Politics?
• October 12, 2022   •   39:53 Is America Headed for Another Civil War?
• October 5, 2022   •   31:58 Are You ‘Third-Party-Curious’? Andrew Yang and David Jolly Would Like a Word.
• September 28, 2022   •   32:23 After Dobbs: What Is Feminist Sex?
• September 21, 2022   •   32:58 After Dobbs: Feminism Beyond the Gender Binary

Should Marijuana Be Legal?

And the author alex berenson makes a case against pot..

With Ross Douthat, Michelle Goldberg and David Leonhardt

Listen and subscribe to our podcast from your mobile device:

Apple Podcasts | RadioPublic | Stitcher | Spotify | Google Play

This week on “The Argument” podcast, the columnists talk pot. First, Michelle Goldberg presses former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson on his forthcoming book about the dangers of marijuana, “ Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence .”

Then, the columnists debate which marijuana policy the country should pursue. Michelle argues the harms of criminalizing weed outweigh the harms of legalizing it. Ross Douthat worries about the broader social impacts of legalization and the growth of the cannabis industry. And David Leonhardt favors a middle path, one that forgoes harsh penalties for marijuana use without incentivizing more Americans to try it.

And finally, merry … Advent? Ross taps into his liturgical side to recommend a solution to the seasonal “Merry Christmas” versus “Happy Holidays” dilemma.

Background Reading:

Ross on marijuana and social libertarianism

David on marijuana’s health effects

Meet the Hosts

Ross douthat.

I’ve been an Op-Ed columnist since 2009, and I write about politics, religion, pop culture, sociology and the places where they all intersect. I’m a Catholic and a conservative, in that order, which means that I’m against abortion and critical of the sexual revolution, but I tend to agree with liberals that the Republican Party is too friendly to the rich. I was against Donald Trump in 2016 for reasons specific to Donald Trump, but in general I think the populist movements in Europe and America have legitimate grievances and I often prefer the populists to the “reasonable” elites. I’ve written books about Harvard, the G.O.P., American Christianity and Pope Francis; I’m working on one about decadence. Benedict XVI was my favorite pope. I review movies for National Review and have strong opinions about many prestige television shows. I have three small children, two girls and a boy, and I live in New Haven with my wife.

Michelle Goldberg

I’ve been an Op-Ed columnist at The New York Times since 2017, writing mainly about politics, ideology and gender. These days people on the right and the left both use “liberal” as an epithet, but that’s basically what I am, though the nightmare of Donald Trump’s presidency has radicalized me and pushed me leftward. I’ve written three books, including one, in 2006, about the danger of right-wing populism in its religious fundamentalist guise. (My other two were about the global battle over reproductive rights and, in a brief detour from politics, about an adventurous Russian émigré who helped bring yoga to the West.) I love to travel; a long time ago, after my husband and I eloped, we spent a year backpacking through Asia. Now we live in Brooklyn with our son and daughter.

David Leonhardt

I’ve worked at The Times since 1999 and have been an Op-Ed columnist since 2016. I caught the journalism bug a very long time ago — first as a little kid in the late 1970s who loved reading the Boston Globe sports section and later as a teenager working on my high school and college newspapers. I discovered that when my classmates and I put a complaint in print, for everyone to see, school administrators actually paid attention. I’ve since worked as a metro reporter at The Washington Post and a writer at BusinessWeek magazine. At The Times, I started as a reporter in the business section and have also been a Times Magazine staff writer, the Washington bureau chief and the founding editor of The Upshot.

My politics are left of center. But I’m also to the right of many Times readers. I think education reform has accomplished a lot. I think two-parent families are good for society. I think progressives should be realistic about the cultural conservatism that dominates much of this country. Most of all, however, I worry deeply about today’s Republican Party, which has become dangerously extreme. This country faces some huge challenges — inequality, climate change, the rise of China — and they’ll be very hard to solve without having both parties committed to the basic functioning of American democracy.

How do I listen?

Tune in on iTunes , Google Play , Spotify , Stitcher or wherever you listen to podcasts. Tell us what you think at [email protected]. Follow Michelle Goldberg ( @michelleinbklyn ), Ross Douthat ( @DouthatNYT ) and David Leonhardt ( @DLeonhardt ) on Twitter.

This week’s show is produced by Alex Laughlin for Transmitter Media, with help from Caitlin Pierce. Our executive producer is Gretta Cohn. We had help from Tyson Evans, Phoebe Lett and Ian Prasad Philbrick. Our theme is composed by Allison Leyton-Brown. Thank you to Kaiser Health News. Check out its podcast “What the Health.”

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Argumentative essay marijuana legalization

Related Papers

Addiction (Abingdon, England)

To examine briefly the (i) rationales for two policy proposals in the United States to make it mandatory for cigarettes to contain very low levels of nicotine and to legalize cannabis for recreational use by adults; and (ii) possible lessons that participants in each policy debate may learn from each other. We briefly describe the diverging policies towards cannabis and tobacco in the United States, explain and critically analyse their rationales and discuss possible policy lessons. Advocates of cannabis legalization have argued that prohibition has been an ineffective and expensive policy that penalizes ethnic minority users unjustly of a drug that is far less harmful than alcohol. The prohibition of traditional tobacco cigarettes has been advocated as a way to eliminate cigarette smoking. These proposals embody very different attitudes towards the harms of recreational adult drug use. Advocates of nicotine prohibition demand that alternative methods of nicotine delivery must be sh...

If caffeine and other such banalised psychoactive substances are left out of consideration, almost everywhere in Europe today cannabis is one of the 'big three'of psychoactive substances, along with alcohol and tobacco. Although the international drug control system applies continuing pressure against it, cannabis has taken on a semi-legal status in many parts of Europe, at least at the level of the user.

Anna Shahrour

Chloe Mutch

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)

John Strang

The Medical Journal of Australia

David Penington

World Medical & Health Policy

James A Swartz

Frontiers in psychiatry / Frontiers Research Foundation

Sunil Aggarwal

Healthcare Policy | Politiques de Santé

Tom Noseworthy

Rachel A Barry

Summary Points • The US states that have legalized retail marijuana are using US alcohol policies as a model for regulating retail marijuana, which prioritizes business interests over public health. • The history of major multinational corporations using aggressive marketing strategies to increase and sustain tobacco and alcohol use illustrates the risks of corporate domination of a legalized marijuana market. • To protect public health, marijuana should be treated like tobacco, not as the US treats alcohol: legal but subject to a robust demand reduction program modeled on successful evidence-based tobacco control programs. • Because marijuana is illegal in most places, jurisdictions worldwide (including other US states) considering legalization can learn from the US experience to shape regulations that prioritize public health over profits.

RELATED PAPERS

Klíma v dejinách. Ako ľudí ovplyvňovala príroda a klimatické zmeny

Evina Stein

The Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Food Sciences

Peter Haščík

Proceedings of the 3rd Green Development International Conference (GDIC 2020)

Nurul Fadila

Mosnegutu Emilia

Nature Communications

Joshua Wicks

Jarosław Zawadzki

Patrick Thompson

Anca Slobozeanu

Ilaria di tullio

17. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách. Sborník příspěvků. 17th International Colloquium on Regional sciences. Conference Proceedings.

Mária Fáziková

Jurnal Inkofar

Manase Sahat

Tubias Capaina

Revista Peruana de Medicina Experimental y Salud Pública

GIOVANNA ROSAS CHAVEZ

Intellect : Indonesian Journal of Learning and Technological Innovation

Hari Antoni Musril

Klaus Bosch

Carla Barbieri

World Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Marcelo Tatit Sapienza

Daniel S Katz

Lucia Muraca

Journal of Pharmaceutical Research International

asawari deo

Psychological Methods

Lisa Lambert

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Drugs

Argumentative Essay on Why I Think Marijuana Should Be Legalized

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Drugs , Marijuana , Teenagers , Social Issues , Law , Criminal Justice , Medicine , Crime

Words: 3000

Published: 10/01/2019

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Introduction

The debate for and against the legalization of Marijuana has been one of the most controversial issue in politics in the recent past. Nonetheless, it can be noted that the use of marijuana for medical purposes has existed for thousands of years in many countries (Randall 34). However, in many of these countries, the use of marijuana has been illegal and it can be noted that the substance has been decriminalized in most of them. Nevertheless, in the recent past, some of the countries have started to come up with various legislation that are permitting the usage of marijuana for medical purposes only (Stampp 64). For instance in the US, it has been highlighted that the usage of marijuana is illegal in most of the states under the federal controlled substances Act of 1970 (Randall, 87).

Alice Wade smokes marijuana, recommended by her pain management physician, to help her chronic pain. Alice is suffering from chronic digestive problems, which causes her unbearable pain. Alice Wade uses the prescribed marijuana to magnify the effect of the painkillers and helps her use less of the pharmaceutical drugs and reduces the risks of addiction and digestive problems. Alice Wade cannot manage her pain without the use of Marijuana. She feels that it gives her a better quality of life where she can function normally on a daily basis. In terms of healthcare costs, Alice wade has suggested that marijuana has assisted her to save cost associated with treating some of the diseases since she can use marijuana locally. Furthermore, she alleges that hemp is useful as a source of fuel and it can be used to replace plastics, which are harmful to the environment. Alice Wade is example of how marijuana can also be used for medical purposes.

Marijuana (grass, pot, and weed) is a dry shredded green and brown mixture of stems, leaves .seeds and flowers which comes from the hemp plant Cannabis sativa. The main active ingredient or chemical is THC (delta -9 tetrahydrocannnabinol) which causes one to experience its ‘high”. Although illegal, Marijuana is the most commonly abused drug in the United States. Although legal in 10 states, medical marijuana has now been relegated to the control of the federal government. Medical marijuana is not considered an effective pain reliever. Former US Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders, said it perfectly; "The evidence is overwhelming that marijuana can relieve certain types of pain, nausea, vomiting and other symptoms caused by such illnesses as multiple sclerosis, cancer and AIDS -- or by the harsh drugs sometimes used to treat them. And it can do so with remarkable safety. Indeed, marijuana is less toxic than many of the drugs that physicians prescribe every day."

Throughout recent years there has been endless arguments on whether marijuana should remain illegal or in fact become be legalized. Research shows that although marijuana can be linked to serious side effects the result of legalizing the popular drug could do endless effects for our economy. Marijuana is the largest cash crop produced in the US and nearly 69 million Americans over the age of 12 have tried marijuana at least once in their lifetime. (1) Many users say that do it because of the “high” sensation they receive from the THC. It has also been on record that people smoke because of social pressures or because they feel that it relaxes them and clears there worries. Alcohol and other similar drugs are known to have the same effects of clearing away ones problems and worries. However marijuana has no documented deaths while the legal drug such as alcohol has about 85,000 deaths annually (2). Based on the data it seems that marijuana should be the legal drug because of the less dangerous and life threatening effects. But this isn’t the case; alcohol is legal while cannabis is banned. Not everyone agrees with the law about marijuana being illegal and thus brought up a valid question, Should marijuana be legalized.

The proponents of legalization of marijuana have been arguing that there is a need of legalization of it due to a number of reasons. For instance, it has been suggested that marijuana has a lot of medical value. As it can be noted, the American Medical Associated argued that the drug should be legalized so as it can be used in the treatment of terminally ill diseases (Saffer 29). For instance, it has been highlighted that Aids patients say that the use of the substance usually stimulate appetites and hence when they use the drug, they will be able to fight the disease. On the other hand, it has been attributed that patients who suffer from glaucoma and have used marijuana have reported that it usually prevent them from going blind (Stampp 78). For the cancer patients, it has been said that marijuana usage alleviated the severe nausea that is often accompanies by chemotherapy and sometimes makes life saving treatment impossible (Saffer 56).

Marijuana (grass, pot, and weed) is a dry shredded green and brown mixture of stems, leaves .seeds and flowers which comes from the hemp plant Cannabis sativa. The main active ingredient or chemical is THC (delta -9 tetrahydrocannnabinol) which causes one to experience its ‘high”. Although illegal, Marijuana is the most commonly abused drug in the United States. The main mind-altering ingredient in marijuana is THC and is the ingredient that causes one to experience its “high” (3).

Altogether, it is evident that marijuana has a lot of medical use and hence it should be legalization. Furthermore, there are several dangerous products than marijuana such as cigarettes and alcohol, which are legal, and hence the proponents of legalization of marijuana term the law to the unjust. On the other hand, it has been suggested that marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substance known to man and hence it can be used within a supervised routine of medical care (Stampp, 2006). Likewise, statistic show that cigarette smoking and abuse of alcohol is harmful to a person health and many deaths have been associated with the use of these two substances but extreme smoking of marijuana only makes a person sleep. Therefore, there is a need of legalizing marijuana because when it is compared with alcohol and cigarettes, which is legal, marijuana is less fatal. According to research that was carried out by the American Medical Association, they indicated that the only confirmed negative effect of marijuana is caused by smoking it, since it contains three times more tar and five times more carbon monoxide than tobacco (Randall, 2007).

The critics against the legalization of marijuana argue that it is wrong for the legalization of marijuana due to a number of reasons. In the first place, they argue that by legalizing marijuana, crime rates will increase since a lot of criminal who have been caught in other criminal offences tend to use this drug. On the other hand, the opponents for the legalization of marijuana say that the government should not be involved with the distribution of a substance, which is considered immoral by the society, and therefore the government should not legalize it (Saffer 89). This is because, a substance that is seen by the society to be unhealthy should not be promoted by the government since the goals of the government is protecting the health of its citizens and by legalizing it, the government will fail to carry its roles in protecting the lives and health of its citizens.

Elsewhere, the opponents of legalization of marijuana have pointed that there are various social and health cost that would be incurred indirectly if marijuana is legalized and hence the costs will automatically outweigh the direct impact which will be created by legalizing it (Stampp 45). For instance, they opponents on legalization of marijuana have argued that there would be an increase in lung related ailments, especially lung cancer and this will make the government use a lot of money in treatment of diseases that are related to marijuana. In addition, since marijuana is addictive, many schoolchildren will drop out of school due to the use of the substance and other people will lose their jobs because of the effects associated with marijuana.

I do have questions about the platform to legalize marijuana. The million dollar media campaigning to legalize it by focusing on people suffering from illnesses and using marijuana for medical purposes to ease their discomfort from their diseases. There are social and cultural issues that also need to be addressed. These campaigns are sending the message to the youth in the country that using marijuana is harmless and will help with any pain one may be having. Because of the ads and the push to legalize marijuana, there has been an increase in the use among high school teens. By sending these messages out by mass media, are we denying drug problems in our country and actually encouraging using marijuana, which is illegal. We have a moral responsibility to protect our youth and these ads undermine the drug prevention efforts used to keep teens off illegal drugs.

While Marijuana has multiple reasons why it should be banned, One California’s prominent issues facing voters on the ballot is proposition 19. This proposition is to “Regulate Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.” In America, today there are millions who frequently smoke marijuana. In addition there are millions more who smoke in social settings but not on a daily basis. Marijuana is prohibited and illegal however, the use, production and sale have not stopped. California however has come up with a proposition on legalizing the drug. Legalizing the drug can do endless help to our economy. Proposition 19 had three main reasons for why marijuana should be legalized. Tax money, potential money from criminal penalties and marijuana used for medical purposes.

In order to purchase this illegal drug, one has to find a drug dealer. Prohibition of marijuana has led to criminal penalties for over 75 years and yet over 25 million people annually purchase and use marijuana. Due to the U.S. policy on drugs, there is great emphasis on arresting individuals for smoking marijuana. 5.9 million Americans have been arrested on Marijuana charges since 1990. Marijuana violations in 2000 recorded over 734,498 arrests. The majority of the arrests were for simple marijuana possession violations. According to the FBI statistics, one marijuana smoker is arrested every 45 seconds in the U.S. The number of marijuana offense arrests for 2000 far exceeds the combined arrests for violent crimes. The illegal drug causes many inter city deputes over it between gangs as well. While law enforcements could be focusing on stopping murders and serious drug dealers and criminals, According to the book, Marijuana: a Look at the Scientific Evidence, “After the sale of all seized drug assets the U.S taxpayer spent about 20 billion per year just for the police enforcement and investigation of marijuana alone. This does not include the amount we pay for other drugs every year or for the incarceration of marijuana users and dealers.” If dollar saved on police enforcement of marijuana, is a dollar earned, then it would be the same about 20 billion dollars a year could be saved if marijuana was legal.

While the USA is in a current economic slump, we could really benefit from an extra 20 billion a year along with the relived stress of searching for illegal marijuana users. The legalization of marijuana to me would also get ride of some of the drug gangs fighting over marijuana everyday. Current drug gangs are making huge profits from selling and disturbing marijuana. Why couldn’t the economy make that money instead? The cost would be similar to the current cost; however, the profit would be going to the government in the form of tax revenue instead of to drug dealers. If we were to legalize marijuana, we would add significant taxes to any purchase of the drug. Just like cigarettes and beer people are still going to purchase them despite the tax. A professor at Harvard, Jeffery Miron, put the estimate at around $6.2 billion dollars a year in tax revenue if weed was legalized. Along with that 20 billion from criminal enforcement earlier, the economy would have a nice amount of money could help save / create more even more jobs, thus help bring our economy out of recession.

Although legal in 10 states, medical marijuana has now been relegated to the control of the federal government. Medical marijuana is not considered an effective pain reliever. Former US Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders said it perfectly "The evidence is overwhelming that marijuana can relieve certain types of pain, nausea, vomiting and other symptoms caused by such illnesses as multiple sclerosis, cancer and AIDS -- or by the harsh drugs sometimes used to treat them. And it can do so with remarkable safety. Indeed, marijuana is less toxic than many of the drugs that physicians prescribe every day."

I was not sure where I stood on the marijuana debate. I don’t smoke marijuana and I really didn’t know that so many people smoked it before doing this research. I would have to say that I now question why it is not legal. From my research, I know that is not as addictive as prescription drugs or alcohol. I know that it is sold by drug rings and they are making millions and causing many drug wars and deaths. I also know that it would be huge revenue for many states if it was legalized. In addition, it would benefit law enforcement and save millions in arrests, and incarcerations. A regulated legal market for marijuana would reduce the use of marijuana for underage teenagers and also lessen their exposure to more addictive illegal drugs. Should individuals be denied to use marijuana for medical purposes? What is the difference from taking a shot or pill for pain and smoking a joint of marijuana for pain relief? I do know that in order to legalize marijuana, the law would have to have set laws to regulate its use and distribution. The U.S. needs to legalize marijuana since people are going to smoke it, buy it and distribute it regardless. I say get smart and get the dealers out of the picture, save our law enforcement from spending most of their time arresting users, ease our over crowded jails and prisons. They should focus on the drugs that are really doing harm.

The economy can be greatly effected by in extra income and help increased jobs and get us out of any economic slump. The legalization of Marijuana would give the U.S. the opportunity to grow hemp as a valuable and diverse agricultural crop but the biggest obstacle is opposition to legal marijuana so the U.S. is not recognizing hemp as a valuable agricultural commodity. Although Marijuana has not been legalized in Canada and most European countries, they have still managed to support legal hemp cultivation. Recognizing the opportunity to develop hemp as a bio fuel and an alternative to oil, used as a fuel source and a way to reduce carbon emissions would also help the economy. Legalizing marijuana would simplify the burden of the hemp production in the United States.

In conclusion, it is evident that the debate on marijuana is a hot topic. However, from the analysis contained in this paper, it is evident that the advantages of legalizing the substance outweigh the disadvantages of legalizing it and hence there is a need of legalizing it. Furthermore, it is evident that marijuana has many uses especially medicinal uses and hence it is important to legalize it. Through passing legislation allowing the use of marijuana, the government will also be able to generate a lot of revenue and hence helping the economy of the country. Nonetheless, since there is no tangible evident showing that the use of marijuana causes death and it is not physically addictive like cigarettes and alcohol, I believe that it is high time for it to be legalized. Altogether, the issue of marijuana being an illegal substance does not have any form of validity and hence it should be legalized but its use should be somehow controlled.

Works Cited

Saffer, James. “ The Effect of Marijuana Decriminalization ,” London: W.W. Norton Publishers, 2006.

Stampp, Legalization of Marijuana . 7 th ed. New York: Addison Wesley, 2006.

Korematzu, R. S. advantages of legalizing marijuana; -Berkeley's School of Information. 2008. Web. 2 Nov 1999.

Roe ,W. Advantages and disadvantages of legalizing marijuana. Black Sheep Farm, USA. 1944. Web. 2 Nov 2005.

Joseph, fritz. PBS Free to Choose 2010 Vol. 4 of 6- Historical Record of Cannabis and the Conspiracy against Marijuana . 2010. Web. 30 July 2010. http://www.marijuana-addiction.info/Marijuana_Statistics.htm.

Dudley, Donnelly. PBS Free to Choose 2010 Vol. 2 of 5 - Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition , 2010. Web. 30 July 2010. http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

Joseph, fritz. PBS Free to Choose 2010 Vol. 4 of 6- Historical Record of Cannabis and the Conspiracy against Marijuana . 2010. Web. 30 July 2010. http://www.marijuana- addiction.info/Marijuana_Statistics.htm.

Gunia, Mexwell. - Marijuana Prohibition , 2010. Web. 30 July 2005. http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.-Lya.htm

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 2521

This paper is created by writer with

ID 285685059

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Donation literature reviews, scandal biographies, monoxide biographies, greenwood biographies, homer book reviews, oxygen book reviews, sexism book reviews, hamlet book reviews, mikhail gorbachev book reviews, memo book reviews, deviance book reviews, migraines book reviews, biochemistry book reviews, modern day soldiers and greco roman soldiers comparison essay, how high schoolers are unprepared for college and some of the reasons why essay, cost quality and access to mobile applications in healthcare thesis sample, good gangs in society course work example, free essay about understanding the stab in the back legend, example of the minimum wage for teenagers admission essay, good example of research paper on ethical leadership, free essay on ulysses grant, free human brain and criminology critical thinking example, example of nicholas kristofs course work, good example of a cartoonist draws an offensive comic and demands that it run unedited argumentative essay, free critical thinking about mission statements four seasons and ritz carltons, good example of art essay, child adoption and trafficking in haiti the concept and origin essay samples, example of at home among strangers a stranger at his own essay, quantitative methods essay example, good essay about what is twitter, interview with a leader essays examples, good example of stereotypical africa vs real africa essay, example of essay on unavoidable ethical questions about social networking, example of case study on enterprise architecture, course work on networking, free essay on pedophilia and underage prostitution, does community policing lead to less abuse of police authority thesis examples, free research paper about should marijuana be legalized in canada, tests essays, acei essays, antero essays, bertini essays, carpenters essays.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Most Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana for Medical, Recreational Use

Legalizing recreational marijuana viewed as good for local economies; mixed views of impact on drug use, community safety, table of contents.

• The impact of legalizing marijuana for recreational use
• Partisan differences on impact of recreational use of marijuana
• Demographic, partisan differences in views of marijuana legalization
• Views of marijuana legalization vary by age within both parties
• Views of the effects of legalizing recreational marijuana among racial and ethnic groups
• Wide age gap on views of impact of legalizing recreational marijuana
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand the public’s views about the legalization of marijuana in the United States. For this analysis, we surveyed 5,140 adults from Jan. 16 to Jan. 21, 2024. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for the report and its methodology .

As more states pass laws legalizing marijuana for recreational use , Americans continue to favor legalization of both medical and recreational use of the drug.

An overwhelming share of U.S. adults (88%) say marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use.

Nearly six-in-ten Americans (57%) say that marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational purposes, while roughly a third (32%) say that marijuana should be legal for medical use only.

Just 11% of Americans say that the drug should not be legal at all.

Opinions about marijuana legalization have changed little over the past five years, according to the Pew Research Center survey, conducted Jan. 16-21, 2024, among 5,14o adults.

While a majority of Americans continue to say marijuana should be legal , there are varying views about the impacts of recreational legalization.

About half of Americans (52%) say that legalizing the recreational use of marijuana is good for local economies; just 17% think it is bad and 29% say it has no impact.

More adults also say legalizing marijuana for recreational use makes the criminal justice system more fair (42%) than less fair (18%); 38% say it has no impact.

However, Americans have mixed views on the impact of legalizing marijuana for recreational use on:

• Use of other drugs: About as many say it increases (29%) as say it decreases (27%) the use of other drugs, like heroin, fentanyl and cocaine (42% say it has no impact).
• Community safety: More Americans say legalizing recreational marijuana makes communities less safe (34%) than say it makes them safer (21%); 44% say it has no impact.

There are deep partisan divisions regarding the impact of marijuana legalization for recreational use.

Majorities of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say legalizing recreational marijuana is good for local economies (64% say this) and makes the criminal justice system fairer (58%).

Fewer Republicans and Republican leaners say legalization for recreational use has a positive effect on local economies (41%) and the criminal justice system (27%).

Republicans are more likely than Democrats to cite downsides from legalizing recreational marijuana:

• 42% of Republicans say it increases the use of other drugs, like heroin, fentanyl and cocaine, compared with just 17% of Democrats.
• 48% of Republicans say it makes communities less safe, more than double the share of Democrats (21%) who say this.

Sizable age and partisan differences persist on the issue of marijuana legalization though small shares of adults across demographic groups are completely opposed to it.

Older adults are far less likely than younger adults to favor marijuana legalization.

This is particularly the case among adults ages 75 and older: 31% say marijuana should be legal for both medical and recreational use.

By comparison, half of adults between the ages of 65 and 74 say marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use, and larger shares in younger age groups say the same.

Republicans continue to be less supportive than Democrats of legalizing marijuana for both legal and recreational use: 42% of Republicans favor legalizing marijuana for both purposes, compared with 72% of Democrats.

There continue to be ideological differences within each party:

• 34% of conservative Republicans say marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use, compared with a 57% majority of moderate and liberal Republicans.
• 62% of conservative and moderate Democrats say marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational use, while an overwhelming majority of liberal Democrats (84%) say this.

Along with differences by party and age, there are also age differences within each party on the issue.

A 57% majority of Republicans ages 18 to 29 favor making marijuana legal for medical and recreational use, compared with 52% among those ages 30 to 49 and much smaller shares of older Republicans.

Still, wide majorities of Republicans in all age groups favor legalizing marijuana at least for medical use. Among those ages 65 and older, just 20% say marijuana should not be legal even for medical purposes.

While majorities of Democrats across all age groups support legalizing marijuana for medical and recreational use, older Democrats are less likely to say this.

About half of Democrats ages 75 and older (53%) say marijuana should be legal for both purposes, but much larger shares of younger Democrats say the same (including 81% of Democrats ages 18 to 29). Still, only 7% of Democrats ages 65 and older think marijuana should not be legalized even for medical use, similar to the share of all other Democrats who say this.

Substantial shares of Americans across racial and ethnic groups say when marijuana is legal for recreational use, it has a more positive than negative impact on the economy and criminal justice system.

About half of White (52%), Black (53%) and Hispanic (51%) adults say legalizing recreational marijuana is good for local economies. A slightly smaller share of Asian adults (46%) say the same.

Criminal justice

Across racial and ethnic groups, about four-in-ten say that recreational marijuana being legal makes the criminal justice system fairer, with smaller shares saying it would make it less fair.

However, there are wider racial differences on questions regarding the impact of recreational marijuana on the use of other drugs and the safety of communities.

Use of other drugs

Nearly half of Black adults (48%) say recreational marijuana legalization doesn’t have an effect on the use of drugs like heroin, fentanyl and cocaine. Another 32% in this group say it decreases the use of these drugs and 18% say it increases their use.

In contrast, Hispanic adults are slightly more likely to say legal marijuana increases the use of these other drugs (39%) than to say it decreases this use (30%); 29% say it has no impact.

Among White adults, the balance of opinion is mixed: 28% say marijuana legalization increases the use of other drugs and 25% say it decreases their use (45% say it has no impact). Views among Asian adults are also mixed, though a smaller share (31%) say legalization has no impact on the use of other drugs.

Community safety

Hispanic and Asian adults also are more likely to say marijuana’s legalization makes communities less safe: 41% of Hispanic adults and 46% of Asian adults say this, compared with 34% of White adults and 24% of Black adults.

Young Americans view the legalization of marijuana for recreational use in more positive terms compared with their older counterparts.

Clear majorities of adults under 30 say it is good for local economies (71%) and that it makes the criminal justice system fairer (59%).

By comparison, a third of Americans ages 65 and older say legalizing the recreational use of marijuana is good for local economies; about as many (32%) say it makes the criminal justice system more fair.

There also are sizable differences in opinion by age about how legalizing recreational marijuana affects the use of other drugs and the safety of communities.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Drug Policy
• Health Policy
• Medicine & Health
• Political Issues

9 facts about Americans and marijuana

Most americans now live in a legal marijuana state – and most have at least one dispensary in their county, americans overwhelmingly say marijuana should be legal for medical or recreational use, clear majorities of black americans favor marijuana legalization, easing of criminal penalties, concern about drug addiction has declined in u.s., even in areas where fatal overdoses have risen the most, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Marijuana — Exploring Arguments on Why Marijuanas Should Not Be Legal

Exploring Arguments on Why Marijuanas Should not Be Legal

• Categories: Controversial Issue Marijuana Marijuana Legalization

About this sample

Words: 1787 |

Published: Apr 17, 2023

Words: 1787 | Pages: 4 | 9 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues Nursing & Health Law, Crime & Punishment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1686 words

3 pages / 1160 words

3 pages / 1194 words

3 pages / 1162 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Marijuana

Introduction Humans have been using cannabis for medicinal purposes for thousands of years, yet the stigma surrounding it persists. Medical marijuana, also known as medical cannabis, has gained significant attention in recent [...]

The debate over the legalization of weed is a contentious and multifaceted issue, with implications for medicine, economics, ethics, and society. In this essay on whether weed should be legalized, we will explore the potential [...]

Marijuana has a long and complex history of use, both for medicinal and recreational purposes. Despite its widespread use, marijuana remains a controversial topic due to its legal status and the potential medical and social [...]

Marijuana refers to the dried leaves, flowers, stems, and seeds from the Cannabis sativa or Cannabis indica plant. The plant contains the mind-altering chemical THC and other similar compounds. Extracts can also be made from the [...]

“There are two sides to every story, and the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.” – Jean Gati There is the “War on Drugs” on one side and Marijuana Legalization as a response to the failures of this war. The binge of [...]

The journey towards the legalization of marijuana in the United States began with landmark decisions made by the states of Colorado and Washington in 2012. Despite being classified as a Schedule 1 drug, categorized as having no [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Signs of Addiction

Marijuana Legalization: Educating Risks and Costs

Position Statement

The Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation has an important responsibility and is uniquely qualified to comment on the risks and effects of marijuana use, the consequences of which we see every day among the people we serve at our addiction treatment centers around the country.

While the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation opposes the expansion of marijuana legalization, we support federal action to drive more research and regulation to protect against the public health consequences of current and future legalization efforts.

We know marijuana is dangerous to many users and addictive to some, and that young people are particularly vulnerable. As debates about legalizing recreational marijuana and medicinal marijuana have intensified during the past decade, many young people have come to view the drug as less risky. Not surprisingly, more of them are using marijuana (also known as cannabis). According to a study from researchers at Columbia University, the entry point for teen substance use has shifted away from cigarettes and alcohol and toward marijuana.

Early use of cannabis is especially troubling. The human brain develops throughout adolescence and well beyond. Marijuana use can harm learning, thinking and memory development, and use of the drug has been linked to mental health issues, including psychosis, as well as other physical health problems. According to one recent study, even a little cannabis consumed by a teenager can cause changes in the part of the brain involved in emotion-related processing, learning and memory formation. We also know the earlier a young person starts to use any mood- or mind-altering substance, the greater the possibility of developing a substance use disorder. Indeed, at our  behavioral health center for adolescents and young adults in Minnesota, 89 percent of our 734 residential patients in 2017 had cannabis in their substance use history, and 84 percent were diagnosed with cannabis use disorder. Each year, we treat approximately two dozen young people who have cannabis-involved psychosis.

One of the recurring themes we hear from the youth we treat is regret—of wasted time, lost opportunities, squandered talent, impaired memory, reduced performance and disinterest in healthy activities. Since 2009, our prevention division, FCD Prevention Works, has surveyed more than 100,000 students in grades 6-12 about substance use beliefs and norms. According to our FCD Student Attitudes and Behavior Survey database, students who used cannabis in the past year, when compared with those who did not, were:

• Thirty-one percent less likely to get 'A's;
• Five times more likely to report feeling the need to also use alcohol or other drugs;
• Twice as likely to have trouble concentrating on important tasks;
• More likely to ride with an impaired driver (30 percent) than students who reported using alcohol (21 percent); and
• Two to three times more likely to engage in physically, emotionally and academically risky behaviors.

According to patients from around the country who come to our treatment centers , prices for marijuana continue to drop in the current environment, making the drug more affordable, especially for young people. We also hear that young marijuana users are shifting more rapidly than ever into using dangerous concentrates of the drug due to new vaping technology and the explosion of high-concentrate cannabis products, including edibles, brought about by commercialization.

The recognition of these risks to the health and trajectory of our young people has been lost in the fervor to legalize marijuana. Too many people—including teenagers—think, incorrectly, that cannabis is a benign or harmless substance. Many parents have told us that it has become increasingly difficult to overcome such misperceptions when talking with their children about marijuana. Public dialogue has become so distorted that some young people who develop addiction to cannabis report that their condition isn't taken seriously, even when their lives are unraveling as a result.

Minimization of the risks—through expanded legalization and misinformation, propagated by profit-minded commercial interests that began their legalization campaigns many years ago—will have long-term public health consequences that will hurt our most vulnerable, high-risk people the most.

According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, the number of daily cannabis users has increased from approximately three million Americans in 2005 to eight million (about one in five cannabis users) in 2017. By contrast, only one in 15 drinkers consumes alcohol daily. While ten percent of the population is most vulnerable to any substance use disorder, it is reasonable to expect that the higher rates of daily marijuana use, as a norm, will only heighten the vulnerability to addiction faced by cannabis users. Among young people, daily cannabis use is at its highest rate in 30 years. More older Americans are using cannabis, too, and it's much more potent than the cannabis of their youth. Among all ages, cannabis use in the United States doubled from 2005 to 2015.

More than ever, we believe it is paramount to educate the public, especially young people and their parents, with objective information about the risks and potentially addictive dynamics of all drugs, including cannabis, and the availability of help. Many Americans are suffering because of cannabis use disorder, and it is important they know that recovery is possible.

While we oppose the use of the word "medicine" to describe cannabis because it has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), we understand that some non-psychoactive constituents of the cannabis plant might have medicinal efficacy; therefore we support further research to investigate whether or not medicines can be developed and evaluated through the FDA process. The FDA's approval in 2018 of a cannabidiol-derived oral solution to treat rare, severe forms of epilepsy is a good example of how the process ought to work. The eagerness in some states to approve medical cannabis based on hopeful signs rather than rigorous scientific scrutiny and FDA approval reflects a disregard for the importance of adequate research and the known risks associated with cannabis use. For example, some states have approved cannabis as a treatment for opioid addiction. The existing scientific evidence does not support such use and, instead, points to significant risks for some patients.

With regard to decriminalization, we support sensible criminal justice reforms that reduce the penalties for marijuana possession/use and that promote recovery and redemption. We are sympathetic to social justice issues—addiction itself is one—and do not believe harsh criminal penalties for possession and use are warranted, especially given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system. Such reforms, however, do not require legalization and commercialization of marijuana. In fact, promises of social justice gains appear to be falling short in states where legal cannabis is already a big business.

Other promises have fallen short too. In California, for example, cannabis sales were down a year after legalization, tax revenues were well below forecasts and the black market was thriving. In Colorado, we have seen a concerning rise in cannabis-involved traffic fatalities and hospitalizations.

Nevertheless, popular support for cannabis legalization has surged. Heading into 2019, 10 states and the District of Columbia had legalized recreational marijuana and 23 other states had implemented medical marijuana programs. Several more states—including New York, New Jersey and Illinois—also appeared poised to consider measures to legalize recreational marijuana soon.

Unfortunately, the federal government has ceded its authority to enforce the current federal law against cannabis. Two successive Administrations—representing each of our major political parties—have chosen not to enforce it. As a result, the status of cannabis as an illegal Schedule 1 drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act means very little, and federal inaction is sending mixed messages to the public and to our youth about the known and scientifically-validated and public health impact of marijuana.

Given the confused and complex state of the nation's cannabis policy, the federal government's most pressing responsibility is to drive more research and robust regulation to protect against the public health consequences of current and future legalization efforts. It is unclear whether "rescheduling" under the Controlled Substances Act is necessary or whether other Congressional and Administration actions can accomplish the same. In either case, it is especially critical to redouble federally funded research efforts to rigorously analyze the impact of existing community-and state-level policies on a wide range of outcomes, including school attendance, employment and health impacts, among others. Doing so, and establishing timelines for the dissemination of such research, would provide a more compelling rationale for other states to delay further legalization efforts. The findings of such research should be included in a robust review of all known evidence and published in a federal public health report identifying both the risks of marijuana use and the impact of expanded availability.

In the current legal environment, private companies have generally been unwilling to subject their medicinal products to FDA scrutiny or to incur the costs of such a process, and scientifically unsubstantiated claims have gained popular acceptance. At the same time, the debates about medical marijuana and recreational marijuana have become blurred, which has worked in the favor of legalization supporters. The federal government, in the absence of enforcing its own laws against cannabis, should now assume the responsibility of funding and potentially conducting the robust research needed to determine if any of the non-psychoactive constituents in cannabis have medical value and to provide guidance into the development of pharmacy-obtainable medications that are safe and effective, with reliable dosage and known composition. Such research should also clarify the constituents of cannabis that do not have any efficacy in treating various ailments.

To protect public health and safety, the country's current patchwork of state policies also needs regulatory guardrails at the federal level. We encourage the federal government to explore creative ways to ensure more effective, consistent regulations in those states where cannabis is legal. Such regulations should include, at a minimum:

• Sufficient funding for robust, evidence-based research on the public health effects of community- and state-level policy changes;
• Educational campaigns to publicize the recent scientific findings of rigorous research studies that point to cannabis-related harms;
• Compliance checks at points of sale to prevent illegal sales to young people;
• A ban on cannabis advertising;
• Restrictions on where cannabis can be sold and used;
• Restrictions on the development of new products, especially those that target children and adolescents;
• Restrictions on cannabis outlet density to prevent concentration in some areas;
• Drugged-driving statutes and tools to implement enforcement, as difficult as this may be given limitations in the available methods for measuring THC concentration in drivers;
• More routine cannabis misuse screening and counseling interventions in primary care settings;
• Implementation of specific evaluations and treatment for youth who misuse cannabis and those who become addicted to it;
• Clear requirements and guidelines regarding potency, dosage information and labels; and
• Dedicated revenue to support the above strategies.

In today's patchwork policy landscape, taxes on legal cannabis have actually driven demand for cheaper, untaxed black-market cannabis. Therefore, while higher alcohol taxes have been shown to reduce alcohol use and related public health consequences, relying too much on cannabis taxes may be counterproductive in the current landscape. For now, it is best to fund public health strategies from multiple revenue sources.

The dialogue around cannabis legalization has been muddied by the federal government's neglect of this issue. It is time for Congress and the Administration to course-correct in a responsible, necessary and politically viable way—by driving more regulation and research. Such actions would help protect against the public health consequences of current legalization efforts, better inform the dialogue moving forward, and, ideally, slow down legalization efforts nationally—aligning with the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation's clear and singular aim of reducing the harmful impact of addiction.

• Historical trends in the grade of onset and sequence of cigarette, alcohol, and marijuana use among adolescents from 1976–2016: Implications for "Gateway" patterns in adolescence
• Grey Matter Volume Differences Associated with Extremely Low Levels of Cannabis Use in Adolescence
• Concerns Rising Over High-Potency Marijuana Use
• More Older Americans Are Turning To Marijuana
• Marijuana Use in America Has Doubled in the Past Decade, Study Says
• Legal marijuana made big promises on racial equity—and fell short
• Promises and Pitfalls of Cannabis Taxes

What Can You Do to Build Marijuana Awareness in Your Community

The Pew Research Center reports that a slim majority of Americans now support legalization. At the same time, opponents are beginning to step up community-based efforts. Regardless of which side you’re on, the reality is that your voice is needed in this debate.

Consider what you have learned about the topic. Assess your own thoughts. What are your values? What are your positions? What are your priorities? How would you like to weigh in?

The following represent just a few of the possible priorities you might identify for yourself and your community.

• Prevent or promote marijuana legalization
• Repeal legalized marijuana
• Provide more public education on marijuana
• Include more education with marijuana prescriptions
• Intervene and treat more of the people who develop cannabis use disorder
• Prepare schools to provide more prevention education and counseling related to marijuana
• Promote more marijuana research
• Regulate marijuana more effectively

Once you’ve identified your own priorities, you may want to engage others in your community. Here is a general game plan for doing so.

Create a Community Coalition for Marijuana Awareness

Community coalition building is a key strategy for increasing awareness of marijuana-related issues. In addition to increasing public awareness, the process of forming a coalition creates new relationships in communities and can strengthen ties between local governments and community members. The basic steps are:

• Identify coalition members
• Hire or assign a local coordinator
• Conduct a local visioning session
• Gather relevant information and data
• Develop an action plan for increasing awareness of marijuana issues and battling addiction
• Implement the action plan

Consider involving schools, treatment providers and others in the health care field, recovery support resources and local law enforcement, among others.

Create a Media Campaign for Marijuana Awareness

Effective publicity is important to any marijuana awareness campaign. You might want to provide marijuana statistics and information about your coalition’s efforts to daily newspapers, television and radio stations, and other local media, such as weekly community newspapers, school and faith-based newspapers, and organization newsletters. You could do so by writing press releases, submitting letters to the editor and opinion columns, and creating public service announcements, for example. Social media should be part of your coalition’s strategy as well, and a community marijuana awareness website might also be helpful.

Host Community Events for Marijuana Awareness

Community events, no matter how large or small, can go a long way toward building awareness and keeping marijuana issues in the forefront of public dialogue. They also help generate media coverage. Best of all, events connect neighbors, empower families and acquaint citizens with valuable resources. Events can help create community solidarity by engaging community members, including young people, in a common purpose. Sometimes they also provide the opportunity to collaborate with neighboring communities. Your coalition might want to host a marijuana education forum, for example, or mock drug courts, regular evening discussions, online chats or even community webinars and video meetings. You could invite people in recovery to speak, ask local artists to create relevant pieces, involve a youth improv troupe, convene a panel of experts and so on. The possibilities are limited only by your coalition’s imagination.

The nation is divided on marijuana policy, and researching policies in other areas of the country can help you develop an approach for your own community. Look for policies that align with your community’s priorities and have proven successful elsewhere.

Be a Lobbyist

Acting as a lobbyist is one way that you can effect policy change. You and others from your community may want to schedule visits with local, state or national lawmakers to voice your views on marijuana legalization and related issues.

It may be easiest to start with local community representatives—your mayor and members of your city council and school board. They may, in turn, be willing to help you set up meetings with state legislators, who in turn could help you set up meetings with members of Congress, if applicable to your objectives.

If you schedule a meeting at a congressional office in Washington, D.C., expect to interact primarily with busy legislative assistants. It’s best to have a brief, well-organized presentation prepared that addresses specific concerns in the senator’s or representative’s district. Members of Congress tend to appreciate personal stories from and about the people they represent.

Whatever level of government you’re trying to affect, it’s helpful to do some background research before approaching public officials. Find out about their interests, the committees on which they serve and their known policy positions. You also may want to check with other local organizations for relevant data, studies and resources that support your objectives. You’ll want to make sure that your request is specific and that you are armed with accurate information as well as local anecdotes and examples.

What Is Happening with Medical Marijuana Policy?

In the United States, marijuana has been a controlled substance for the lifetime of most people living today. But there has been a movement for several decades to bring back medical applications of the drug. Many states have now legalized marijuana for medical purposes, although restrictions regarding its use vary from state to state.

For example, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a neurosurgeon who has served as a chief medical consultant in broadcast journalism and was vetted for the position of Surgeon General by President Barack Obama, publicly chronicled how his viewpoint changed on medical marijuana through documentary research. “When it comes to marijuana…there are very legitimate medical applications…. I didn’t look far enough. I didn’t review papers from smaller labs in other countries doing some remarkable research.” He further specified, “There is now promising research into the use of marijuana that could impact tens of thousands of children and adults, including treatment for cancer, epilepsy, and Alzheimer’s, to name a few.”

Many medical professionals disagree, however. There is also a strong position that the evidence for medical marijuana is unclear and that alternative treatments exist with fewer risks and unknowns.

Another view is that different people react differently to the same medication, and that different people face different risks when it comes to using a particular drug. Therefore it can be useful to have options. In this view, as a medicine, cannabis may be a good choice for some people and a bad choice for others.

Some medical professionals have prescribed cannabis for cancer, anorexia, AIDS, glaucoma, chronic pain, arthritis, insomnia, migraines, anxiety, depression, headache, nausea, epilepsy, asthma, premenstrual tension, drug withdrawal and other conditions.

When we examine the historical statements about the drug, contemporary medical uses are very similar to ancient ones. However, medical professionals do not universally agree that medical marijuana is beneficial, and those who are willing to prescribe it acknowledge that it is not an FDA-approved medication and that it is still classified as a Schedule I narcotic by the federal government. If a state has approved medical marijuana, it is generally recommended that the state medical association develop standardized physician criteria for writing medical marijuana recommendations and share the criteria with law enforcement and the public.

In the United States, a synthetic cannabinoid, “dronabinol,” was approved for use in 1986. It is marketed as Marinol capsules and is indicated for treatment of anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with AIDS, and for the nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy for patients who have failed to respond adequately to conventional drugs aimed at suppressing those symptoms.

Some medical marijuana opponents point to Marinol as an alternative to medical marijuana in its smoked form. On the other hand, proponents of medical marijuana note that Marinol can lead to death, while smoked marijuana has never caused a documented overdose fatality. Medical marijuana supporters also argue that Marinol takes one hour to reach full effect, while smoked cannabis acts within minutes.

In Canada in 2005 and in the United Kingdom in 2010, a prescription medicine called Sativex was released. It is a mouth spray for treating spasticity in patients with multiple sclerosis. It contains a synthetic version of THC. Sativex is currently under review by the FDA for use in the United States.

U.S. research trials for medical marijuana must follow a strict process that has considerably limited the amount of federally approved research activity. A proposal must first gain approval from the FDA. After that, a marijuana permit must be obtained from the Drug Enforcement Administration. Last but not least, a supply of medical marijuana must be obtained from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), which controls all approved medical marijuana grown for research purposes in the United States.

While the Obama administration removed the earlier need for marijuana research proposals to be approved by the Public Health Service, the application process remains difficult and lengthy. That is largely because of marijuana’s federal classification as a Schedule I narcotic.

Despite the hurdles, some research is happening, leading to developments like a new federal patent on cannabinoids for their use as antioxidants and neuroprotectants. A number of bills have also been introduced to reduce the red tape and expand research. And NIDA has vowed to “build farm capacity flexible enough to accommodate various levels of demand for research marijuana and marijuana products over the next five years.” NIDA, in fact, renewed a contract with the University of Mississippi (where the marijuana is grown) for up to $68.7 million through 2020.

Research studies are also taking place elsewhere. At the end of 2014, the Colorado Board of Health announced that it would spend over $8 million to study the efficacy of medical marijuana. Three of the studies need federal approval and therefore require marijuana supplied by NIDA. Five other observational studies involve participants providing their own marijuana.

The incredible variety of cannabis plant strains makes it difficult to have consistency in medical marijuana products. Typically, medical marijuana also requires different doses and types for different ailments. This variability will no doubt be an ongoing complication to medical marijuana research, since the FDA drug review process requires exact quantities and composition of drugs for recipients.

Drug approvals in the United States take an average of 12 years from invention to market, and only one in 5,000 makes the cut. Many are paying close attention to the scientific discussions and the political positioning taking place among physicians, health insurance companies, health care organizations, policymakers, patients, parents, schools and communities. Influential medical institutions such as the Mayo Clinic and UnitedHealth Group recognize these conversations, the need for more research, and the increase in states supporting medical marijuana, but have refrained from taking a stance on the issue, instead publishing educational information and calling for more research.

The debate over the value of marijuana as medicine is an interesting and often heated one, with knowledgeable people weighing in on both sides of the issue. Regardless of one’s personal views, it is important to always keep in mind that marijuana is a potent drug deemed addictive by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and illegal by the federal government. While it is important to stay updated on legal trends and ramifications, it is even more important to concentrate on efforts to prevent marijuana misuse and abuse—especially among youth.

Arguments for Medical Marijuana

• Legalization of medical marijuana offers access to a medication that may effectively treat many health conditions.
• Marijuana provides another alternative for those who have experienced unsuccessful treatment with other medications and modalities.
• The passage of medical marijuana laws sets a precedent for medicinal usage of the plant and validates the need for medical research trials.
• Medical marijuana may reduce powerful opioid prescriptions, if research proves its effectiveness for chronic pain.
• Cannabinoids, chemical compounds in marijuana with apparent medical benefits, can be extracted, replicated and applied in ways that don’t involve smoking, thereby eliminating negative impacts of that methodology.
• Marijuana dispensaries run by state governments, as opposed to illegal markets, should provide safer regulation, safer products and state tax profits.

Arguments Against Medical Marijuana

• Medical marijuana is not approved by the FDA, and research is lacking to support its use for many of the conditions for which it is prescribed.
• Medical marijuana policies make marijuana increasingly accessible and reduce the perception of risk, which is particularly concerning for youth.
• Medical marijuana increases the number of people using marijuana, which in turn increases the number of people at risk for addiction.
• Addiction and other adverse health effects from using marijuana have individual and social costs.
• Smoking marijuana can lead to a host of medical problems, similar to those that present in tobacco smokers and negative effects like lung cancer may outweigh potential benefits.
• Medical marijuana could lead to decreased public perception of harm, and could thereby increase illicit use.
• In some states that allow medical marijuana, medical professionals question the legitimacy of some prescribing physicians and their reasons for recommending medical marijuana.

What Is Happening with Recreational Marijuana Policy?

Many more states have legalized medical marijuana than those that have legalized adult recreational marijuana. In those that have legalized recreational marijuana, you cannot be arrested, ticketed or convicted for using marijuana as long as you follow the laws related to age, place and amount of consumption. However, you can still get arrested for selling or trafficking marijuana if you aren’t following state laws on licensure and taxation.

Recreational marijuana markets introduce more variables and policy considerations. While the Obama administration chose not to interfere with state recreational marijuana laws as long as states were abiding by their respective laws and keeping retail businesses within their own borders, current or future administrations could decide to challenge such laws. Recreational marijuana poses legal risk given that it is still currently against federal law to sell, use or possess marijuana.

The U.S. Controlled Substances Act is the relevant federal law, and it defines a controlled substance as a drug or chemical that is illegal or needs to be very strictly regulated. The law also establishes several categories, or “schedules,” of controlled substances that are used to determine penalties for possessing, using or misusing drugs, or selling individual types of substances. A drug is categorized in a particular schedule based on several factors:

• Scientific knowledge about the drug and its effects
• The likelihood that the drug will be misused or abused
• How the drug is (and has historically been) misused or abused
• How the drug poses a risk to the public
• Whether the drug currently has accepted medical uses
• Whether use of the drug can lead to addiction
• Whether the drug is used or likely to be used in making another controlled substance

Schedule I drugs are considered the most dangerous; Schedule V drugs are considered the least dangerous. According to current federal law, heroin, LSD, ecstasy and marijuana are all classified as Schedule I drugs.

Although the Obama administration did not interfere with states that legalized recreational marijuana, the federal law does limit those states in certain ways. For example, marijuana in those states must be grown, sold, used and taxed within state borders without using federal land, federally-managed resources like water or federally regulated banks. Retail marijuana businesses also cannot deduct business expenses on their federal income taxes. In addition, colleges, universities and employers in states where marijuana is legal can still enforce alcohol and other drug policies that reflect federal rather than state regulations.

States with legalized recreational marijuana have generated handsome tax revenues as a result. Colorado, for example, reported $700 million in marijuana sales and nearly $70 million in tax revenue in 2014. These figures, of course, don’t include the costs that those states will incur from marijuana-related hospitalization, regulation and policing—figures that are still being quantified. Several more states are debating legalization, and could be attracted to the potential tax dollars. It’s worth restating, however, that state budgets with recreational marijuana revenue could be put at risk if stricter federal enforcement ever returns. Colorado and Washington are seen by many as testing grounds for legalization, and it is still too early to draw definitive conclusions about the impact on adult and youth usage patterns, crime rates, substance use disorder rates, vehicular deaths and other relevant financial and social effects.

As such states learn from their experience, they are also attempting to identify best-practice regulatory policies to address state versus municipal conflicts, the tenuous federal versus state conflict, research trials, cultural considerations, federal bank funding issues and more.

Arguments for Legalized Recreational Marijuana

• Marijuana is less physically harmful than the legal drug alcohol.
• Efforts to forcibly control rather than permit the use of marijuana have alienated and incarcerated otherwise law-abiding citizens.
• The U.S. government has failed to control the supply of marijuana despite high rates of incarceration for marijuana possession.
• Universal access to treatment and educational programs can decrease the demand for marijuana (as it has for tobacco use).
• Most people who use marijuana do not go on to use other drugs.
• Legalization would permit tax income, some of which could be used to provide treatment and fund prevention programs.
• Government regulation would permit oversight of the drug’s purity and provide a means for levying sanctions against those who divert marijuana to adolescents.

Arguments Against Legalized Recreational Marijuana

• Marijuana is addictive, alters the natural chemical composition of the brain and affects physiological functions throughout the body.
• Use equals risk—when more people smoke marijuana, more will develop cannabis use disorders.
• While perhaps not as physically dangerous as some other substances, marijuana leads to a decline in cognitive skills and motivation that can affect opportunities, talent, memory, performance and interest in healthy activities.
• Alcohol and tobacco are legal but also produce great societal consequences, and introducing yet another legal substance to mainstream culture could have unpredictable, harmful consequences.
• Legalizing marijuana for adults would communicate acceptance of its use and likely decrease the perception of its harmfulness, including among youth.
• Marijuana use complicates the diagnosis and treatment of a variety of underlying psychiatric conditions.
• Frequent use of marijuana affects adolescent development; in adults, it often impairs maturation psychologically, socially, professionally and spiritually.

What Is Happening with Decriminalization Efforts, and How Are Changes in Marijuana Policy Impacting Law Enforcement?

You have probably heard the term “decriminalization” used in marijuana discussions. It is important to know that  decriminalization is not the same as legalization . Decriminalizing simply means to significantly reduce the consequences for breaking marijuana laws.

For example, states that have decriminalized marijuana typically don’t prosecute people caught with small amounts of the drug intended for personal consumption (usually under an ounce), meaning they don’t go to jail, and the offense typically doesn’t go on their criminal record. They may still get a ticket and fine, however, much like one would for a minor traffic violation or an “open container” violation for alcohol. In some states that have decriminalized marijuana, people who get caught using or possessing small amounts could also be ordered to attend educational classes on substance misuse and addiction.

Decriminalization affects law enforcement efforts by lowering the priority of marijuana-related arrests. Legalization efforts have also affected law enforcement, sometimes in unanticipated ways. For example, Colorado has experienced an increase in homelessness due to people moving to the state hoping to find work in the legal marijuana industry.

While the creation of any new industry does lead to more jobs, there is a limit to the number of opportunities, and many of those seeking employment are not qualified. Another unforeseen challenge for marijuana businesses is that they must comply with federal banking restrictions that require them to deal in cash, creating targets for burglaries and robberies.

One of the biggest issues for law enforcement is the black, or illegal, market, which still exists even in states with legalized recreational and/or medical marijuana. States also describe a “gray” market, one in which legal producers sell inventory under the table to black-market suppliers.

Personal growing laws can present law enforcement problems because they may be unclear and open to interpretation. For example, residents of Colorado might grow their limit of six marijuana plants, but could conceivably grow additional plants for family members, friends or neighbors. Cooperative spaces such as warehouses or homes converted for growing operations cause problems as well. And states also must monitor street prices to ensure the price of the legal supply remains competitive despite the taxes they levy. Otherwise, price-conscious consumers will look to black- and gray-market inventory instead.

Ensuring that each cultivated plant has a license is time consuming and difficult to monitor without a warrant. Search warrants also can be difficult to obtain due to ambiguity around medical marijuana licenses and recreational laws. Seizures of illegal products are complicated as well, due to conflicting state and federal laws, and questions about what to do with the seized inventory. In addition, canines trained for drug detection may need retraining or replacement because often they have not been taught to discern between marijuana and other illegal substances.

Law enforcement must also deal with drugged driving. Obviously, people should not drive while impaired by marijuana and should expect legal ramifications if they are caught doing so. The problem is enforcement. Methods for testing the effects of marijuana produce ambiguous results since THC is fat soluble, which means detectable traces linger in the body even after users are no longer intoxicated. A marijuana “Breathalyzer” test does not yet exist, technology allowing oral fluid testing is still being developed and blood tests are prohibitively expensive.

In addition, current drugged driving laws run into legal obstacles when it comes to medical marijuana patients. In July 2015, Denver resident Melanie Brinegar was pulled over for an expired license plate tag, but the officer smelled marijuana and performed field and blood tests. Brinegar had a medical marijuana license and used cannabis daily for chronic pain, which meant the THC level in her blood was high. She was acquitted of drugged driving even though her blood test came back at nearly four times the legal limit.

Complicating the problem further is the combined use of alcohol and marijuana. The risk from driving under the influence of both alcohol and cannabis is greater than the risk of driving under the influence of either alone, and data from Colorado shows impaired driving related to marijuana is increasing. Authorities need to clearly define the behaviors that constitute impairment and determine consistent ways of identifying and measuring those behaviors.

Law enforcement also must tackle other public safety concerns, such as explosions or fires that result from home growers attempting to make marijuana extracts like hash oil—a dangerous process that requires proper equipment to ensure safety. As one might suspect, this issue also affects medical facilities and first responders. Other safety concerns related to growing operations include toxic mold, THC in the air and on surfaces, and unsafe carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide levels due to fertilizers, pesticides, and disconnected vents— methods used to enhance plant growth.

Edible marijuana products are causing medical issues as well, due to accidental ingestion and potency issues. In Colorado, hospitalizations related to marijuana have increased 218 percent from 2000 to 2013. “Marijuana tourism” also contributes to the problem because most tourists are novice users with, in too many cases, little education to guide their use.

Trafficking of marijuana is another problem, especially in a state such as Colorado, which shares borders with seven other states. In 2014, law enforcement intercepted Colorado marijuana destined for other states 360 times—a 592 percent increase over the yearly average between 2005 and 2008. And driving across the border is not the only way the drug is being trafficked. From 2010 through 2014, the number of known parcels containing Colorado marijuana being mailed to other states increased 2,033 percent. Inventory tracking for marijuana outlets helps, but it has taken time to set up tracking systems. Colorado authorities did not have an established data collection system when marijuana laws changed—important for measuring crime rates, hospitalizations and so on. Suffice it to say, the nation is just beginning to understand the impact of changing marijuana policy on law enforcement.

History of Alcohol and Marijuana Policy

A history of alcohol policy in the united states.

As marijuana policies are re-examined in the United States, it may be useful to look at our history of alcohol policy for guidance.

Alcohol has been a part of American culture for hundreds of years. Some Native American tribes used alcohol for ceremonial purposes during the precolonial era. In the sixteenth century, the pilgrims landed the Mayflower illegally at Cape Cod rather than at their chartered destination in Virginia because they were looking to replenish their supply of beer. By the 1820s, Americans of all ages were drinking more than at any point in our history—consuming on average about three times as much alcohol per day as their counterparts do now in the twenty-first century.

Widespread overconsumption and public drunkenness led to the temperance movement, which gained momentum through the formation of the American Temperance Society in 1826. Temperance groups called for abstinence from alcohol and gained cultural momentum, resulting in increased demands for government prohibition. Maine passed a law in 1851 prohibiting the manufacture and sale of liquor, only to repeal it five years later. The temperance movement eventually lost steam during the Civil War, but it was revived afterward. In 1881, Kansas made history when it amended its constitution to outlaw alcoholic beverages. Other states began to follow suit.

The outbreak of World War I in 1914 spurred calls for nationwide prohibition, due to the need for devoting the nation’s barley crop to bread rations for soldiers, rather than to beer production.

 In 1920, Congress ratified the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, making the production, import, transport and sale of alcohol illegal nationwide. The separate Volstead Act (designed to enforce Prohibition) went into effect the same year. Estimates indicate alcohol consumption fell sharply during the first few years of Prohibition, and even though it rose a bit during later Prohibition years, overall consumption still remained 30 to 40 percent below pre-Prohibition levels.

At the same time, illegal activities rose during Prohibition. Illegally distilled spirits, such as moonshine and bathtub gin, were produced in mass. Speakeasies that served illegal alcohol gained popularity. Bootlegging, the dangerous illegal transportation of alcohol, became incredibly profitable. Organized crime groups grew in size, were well-funded and became increasingly violent. Law enforcement, overstretched by insufficient resources, struggled to carry out the laws associated with Prohibition. Lack of coordination between federal, state, and local authorities complicated enforcement efforts. In addition, methanol poisonings increased due to the poor quality of amateur homemade alcoholic beverages. And lawmakers who drank alcohol themselves were exposed as hypocrites.

Cries for repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment increased, particularly in urban areas. Prohibition laws were intended to curb violence and crime, but the opposite happened. And the black market for alcohol disrupted the legitimate economy, which also suffered from the rising costs of Prohibition enforcement and the collapse of the stock market in 1929.

With the onset of the Great Depression, state governments began looking again at the tax revenue that legal alcohol sales could generate. In 1932, Franklin D. Roosevelt secured the Democratic nomination for president and won on a platform that supported ending Prohibition. Soon after his election, in 1933, Congress proposed and the states approved the Twenty-First Amendment, which repealed both the Eighteenth Amendment and Volstead Act. A few states continued statewide prohibition, but by 1966 all of them had abandoned it.

While the federal government regulates production of alcoholic beverages, taxes alcohol sales and requires a Surgeon General health warning on alcoholic products, alcohol sales are now regulated primarily by state and local governments. As a result, there are differences throughout the nation regarding when alcohol is sold, where it is sold, how it is sold, what varieties are sold and so on. In fact, some dry communities still exist. After Prohibition, the drinking age in most areas of the country was eighteen. Eventually, all states adopted a minimum drinking age of twenty-one, encouraged to do so by the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, which tied the age requirement to federal highway funds.

Also of note: home brewing of beer and wine, unlike the federally regulated production of distilled alcohols, is now legal in all states (Mississippi and Alabama were the last to legalize this activity in 2013). However, home brewers are not allowed to sell the wine and beer they produce.

A History of Marijuana Policy in the United States

Varieties of cannabis plants are also known as hemp plants, although the word  hemp  is more commonly used when referring to fiber derived from such plants. Hemp, the fiber, has been used extensively throughout history for items such as rope, paper, fabrics and sail canvas. Hemp fiber also can be used to create concrete-like blocks for construction projects, bioplastics, jewelry and biofuels. In colonial America, hemp production was a requirement of English rule, and George Washington himself grew it as one of his main crops at Mount Vernon. At that time, hemp plants were low in tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active component of cannabis, and valued mostly for their role in industry.

Medicinal use of cannabis did not make its first appearance in America until the 1850s, when products with cannabis extracts were first produced and sold for the purpose of treating maladies such as pain and muscle spasticity. Soon after, pharmaceutical regulations were introduced in individual states. Products containing habit-forming substances like cannabis were often labeled poison and, in some cases, were available only with a physician’s prescription.

In the early 1900s, California passed the Poison Act, which was intended to make it a misdemeanor to be in possession of cannabis products not intended for medicinal use. However, it unexpectedly was applied to medicinal use as well. Eventually, similar laws passed in other states. The Federal Bureau of Narcotics was established in 1930 to enforce legislation that regulated and taxed products derived from opium and coca plants, and Harry J. Anslinger was appointed commissioner. Anslinger, a supporter of Prohibition, enforced criminalization of marijuana and publicized his belief that it incited violence and lewd sexual behavior. All states soon had laws regulating cannabis, and the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 made possession or transfer of cannabis illegal on a federal level while imposing a tax on medical marijuana and industrial hemp.

Stricter punishments for marijuana offenses were put in place in the 1950s. And, although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 unconstitutional in 1970, passage of the Controlled Substances Act that same year placed cannabis in the Schedule I federal classification, where it remains today, making both medical and recreational marijuana illegal in the eyes of the federal government. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was created in 1973 to enforce federal drug laws.

Changes toward more lenient marijuana policy began in the 1970s, with some states decriminalizing it, or significantly reducing the penalties for illegal use. In 1996, California legalized medical marijuana, but the U.S. Supreme Court successfully upheld the ability of the DEA to enforce the Controlled Substances Act, even when it conflicts with such a state law. In 2005, the Supreme Court once again upheld the DEA’s authority in such conflicts.

Still, more states continued to reduce penalties for marijuana-related charges, and some continued to pass medical marijuana laws. Then, in 2012, Washington and Colorado legalized recreational marijuana, with intentions to regulate it like alcohol. Colorado created a Marijuana Enforcement Division, and Washington placed marijuana regulation under its State Liquor Control Board. Since then, other states have passed laws legalizing recreational marijuana, and several have approved medical marijuana programs.

In 2013, the Obama administration said the federal government would not challenge state legalization efforts. Two years later, the Obama administration eased some restrictions on cannabis research to study its potential as medicine. Meanwhile, various bills have been introduced in Congress to reclassify federal scheduling of marijuana, reduce or eliminate penalties for minor marijuana violations and legalize medical marijuana nationally.

A Brief History of Marijuana as Medicine

Some have viewed marijuana as having medical value throughout history:

• The Chinese emperor Fu Hsi referenced it as a popular medicine in 2900 BC, and the herb was included in the Chinese Pharmacopeia, the Rh-Ya, in 1500 BC. By 100 AD, the Chinese had more than one hundred medical uses for marijuana, including treating gout, malaria and absentmindedness. In 200 AD, surgeon Hua T’o performed a number of surgeries using an anesthetic made from cannabis resin and wine.
• The original Hebrew version of the book of Exodus refers to a “holy anointing oil” that combined olive oil, fragrant herbs and  kaneh bosm  (cannabis).
• The ancient Egyptians prescribed cannabis for glaucoma, inflammation, “cooling the uterus” and administering enemas.
• Bhang , a drink that combined cannabis and milk, was used as an anesthetic and antiphlegmatic in India around 1000 BC. By 600 BC, Indians believed it could prolong life, improve thinking and judgment, reduce fevers, induce sleep, cure dysentery and cure leprosy.
• The Persians of 700 BC listed cannabis as the most important of 10,000 medicinal plants.
• The Greeks of 200 BC used it for earaches, edema and inflammation.
• In 70 AD, a Roman army medical text declared  kannabis  useful for treating earache and suppressing sexual longing. Soon thereafter, Roman author Pliny the Elder noted that the roots of cannabis boiled in water eased cramped joints, gout and violent pain.
• Across Arabia in the ninth century, cannabis was used to treat a variety of ailments, including migraines and syphilis.
• In England in 1621, clergyman Robert Burton suggested using cannabis to treat depression in his book  The Anatomy of Melancholy . Other British herbalists suggested cannabis for gout and joint pain. Later, in Victorian England, cannabis was used for muscle spasms, menstrual cramps, rheumatism and convulsions; to promote uterine contractions in childbirth; and as a sleep aid.
• In colonial America, hemp was raised as a fiber crop; however, George Washington made notes in his diary of 1765 about his interest in the medicinal uses of the plant.
• By 1840, marijuana had become part of mainstream Western medicine, and was added to the U.S. Pharmacopeia in 1850. It was also included in patent medicines. Newer uses included increasing appetites, treating opium withdrawal, and suppressing vomiting and nausea.
• In the United States from 1900 to the 1930s, cannabis was included in many medications. The American pharmaceutical companies Parke-Davis and Eli Lilly sold extracts of cannabis for use as an analgesic, antispasmodic and sedative, while Grimault and Co. marketed marijuana cigarettes to treat asthma.
• Cannabis was prohibited in the United Kingdom under its Dangerous Drugs Act in 1928. In the United States, all states had enacted laws regulating marijuana by 1936. Its use in medicine was replaced by aspirin as well as by morphine and other opiates. By 1942, it was removed from its place in the U.S. Pharmacopeia and was considered to have no therapeutic legitimacy.

What You Can You Do If Marijuana Has Been Legalized in Your State

Whether marijuana is medically legal, recreationally legal or completely illegal in your state, you still may be concerned about the dangers of use, particularly among youth, as well as the potential for addiction. You’re also likely to be interested in pursuing public education or perhaps marijuana prevention efforts, as well as making sure addiction treatment and recovery resources are available in your community.

If marijuana is legal in your state, you probably have additional concerns, such as where it is sold, how much individuals can possess, where it is legal to use the drug, where it can be transported, how to govern drugged driving and more.

It may be helpful to know that in states where recreational marijuana has been approved, individual communities still have the right to opt out. For example, shortly after the passage of Oregon’s Measure 91 (legalizing statewide recreational marijuana), the League of Oregon Cities proposed a bill allowing cities and counties to ban marijuana within their borders or to levy their own taxes on retail sales to make marijuana prohibitively expensive. Some communities have also banned use in public areas, established zero-tolerance policies at schools and encouraged local businesses to adopt drug-testing programs for employees. In another example, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office has supported employer policies that forbid employees from using marijuana, even when off duty.

Many are keeping a close eye on the impact of marijuana policies in states where it is already legal. Indeed, your community may look to existing policies elsewhere for lessons learned. Yet keep in mind that those communities are still learning. Community monitoring and involvement need to be ongoing in order to continuously improve regulations and education about marijuana, and to minimize the negative impact of marijuana on youth and public health.

Understanding the Regulatory Framework if Marijuana Has Been Legalized in Your State

If you live in a state with legalized marijuana and want to help prevent marijuana from negatively impacting your community, it’s best to start by familiarizing yourself with the state law that made marijuana legal. It should either provide information or lead you to information about the regulatory framework that was established to govern your state’s marijuana industry. These regulations might address any number of issues, including licensing and production, taxes and pricing, how marijuana is prepared and consumed, and packaging and marketing. What’s more, ongoing regulatory oversight will ensure that changes are implemented when necessary and additional concerns are tackled as they arise.

Let’s start with licensing and production. State regulations will govern who is licensed to produce and sell marijuana, guidelines for product safety and quality, and security requirements designed to limit diversion from legal production systems to illegal markets. Review the state statute to learn how your state is addressing these issues in its regulatory framework.

You also will want to review your state’s marijuana taxes and how they relate to retail pricing. Both are flexible regulatory tools that can swiftly respond to changing circumstances or new evidence. The legal price of marijuana has a huge impact on the size of the illegal market, levels and patterns of consumption, home-growing trends, use of other drugs that may be less expensive and revenue generated from production and sales.

In 2014, Colorado rang up $700 million in marijuana sales and garnered $70 million in tax revenue—almost twice as much as the state collected from alcohol taxes that year. Of that, $24 million was appropriated for building schools, $8 million for marijuana research, and $11 million for addiction prevention and treatment targeted to students. Additional funds were set aside for law enforcement.

Community involvement can help steer marijuana revenues to education, prevention programs and addiction treatment. It is worth noting, however, that marijuana-based revenue streams remain at some risk, should the current or a future presidential administration decide to enforce federal laws more strictly.

As you examine your state’s regulatory framework, you may find rules and guidelines specific to different forms of marijuana. The drug can be prepared and consumed in a number of ways. Most often, we think of marijuana in its smoked form. But the drug also can be prepared in pill form, as an oil to be vaporized, as an edible product, as a liquid tincture and in other forms. Some argue that non-smoked derivatives should be regulated, approved and promoted in policy as a healthier alternative to smoked marijuana.

At the same time, others raise unique concerns about edible marijuana products. Indeed, recent deaths related to the dosages in edibles have highlighted the need for increased regulation of such goods. Advocates have called for better warning labels on the packaging, uniform lab testing standards to ensure product consistency and education campaigns. Stricter regulation of edible products means better control over what’s available, better information for the general public and fewer accidental deaths. Meanwhile, the need to expand research on marijuana edibles parallels the need to expand all types of marijuana research.

Another important issue is  marijuana potency . As you may have heard, the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) levels in marijuana today are much higher than they were in decades past. While marijuana with higher THC levels poses more health risks, legal marijuana with low THC levels can fuel the illegal market for marijuana with higher THC concentrations. Regulations ought to be balanced accordingly.

Regulation of the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries has resulted in child-resistant packaging and other packaging requirements. Similarly, marijuana packaging should be child resistant, include general safety information and be targeted only to adults. That was not initially the case in Colorado. Edible marijuana products sold there looked so much like candy that Hershey won a lawsuit against an edibles company for trademark infringement. In response to this and other concerns, Colorado created a legislative task force dedicated to monitoring regulations on packaging of edible products and launched media campaigns to more effectively educate the public about cannabis consumption. In both cases, community advocates played a big role in raising concerns and bringing about change.

When it comes to marketing marijuana products, we can learn much from the alcohol and tobacco industries. Widespread marketing of alcohol has accompanied ever-increasing use, especially among youth. The same could once be said for tobacco marketing. However, with the advertising restrictions in recent decades, tobacco use has declined significantly. In light of this, banning all forms of marijuana advertising, promotion and sponsorship could significantly help with prevention efforts. Effective marketing restrictions can prevent problems, especially with underage use. Marijuana business interests may disagree with marketing restrictions, and in fact, they do in states like Colorado and Washington. For prevention-minded communities, this is an issue demanding early attention.

A related issue to licensing for marijuana producers is licensing of vendors, who must be trained to enforce and follow restrictions on sales relating to age, amount, intoxication and so on. Communities can also expect vendors to help educate customers about using responsibly, minimizing risks, and getting help or further information if needed. Vendors that fail to meet requirements should be penalized and, potentially, lose their license.

Also subject to regulation are the retail outlets where vendors sell their marijuana products. Most believe such stores should be only functional and should not include advertising, signage or product displays that promote marijuana use. Many also support restricting marijuana outlet locations to keep them away from places like schools, playgrounds, parks and homes, and to prevent them from becoming too concentrated in one area. Designated areas for consumption should be clearly marked and publicized to minimize public exposure and assist with law enforcement.

Purchaser regulations are another essential aspect of a state’s legal framework. Of course, age limits are important. Limits on purchasable amounts are critical, too, because they promote more responsible consumption and prevent resale to minors and others on the black market. In addition, drugged driving laws are vital to protecting the public from buyers who would drive under the influence of marijuana.

In the end, people’s well-being is the most important factor in the public discussion over marijuana, and establishing a regulatory framework is an important first step in reducing the negative impact of marijuana on the community. But the real work starts afterward. Regulations must be monitored for effectiveness and altered if necessary. That means data should be collected and measured to track progress toward policy goals—something that requires funding. As a community member, you may need to advocate for funding to support data collection, focus groups, research studies and more, all of which can be used to monitor use and addiction rates, demographic trends, drugged driving convictions, crash incidents, hospital visits, calls to poison control centers, public consumption violations and so on. Such data can inform local policymakers as they consider changes to laws, regulations and public investments. Ultimately, changes in public policy take place through community action—action that starts with you. So ask questions and be proactive.

Are you or a loved one struggling with alcohol or other drugs? Call today to speak confidentially with a recovery expert. Most insurance accepted.

Harnessing science, love and the wisdom of lived experience, we are a force of healing and hope ​​​​​​​for individuals, families and communities affected by substance use and mental health conditions..

The Reasons Why Marijuana Should be Made Legal Research Paper

Introduction, arguments against marijuana, arguments for marijuana, works cited.

Drugs that cause addiction and have negative effects health has been illegalized in most constitutions. These drugs are seen to have minimal benefits and enormous side effects. Among drugs that have been illegalized include: heroin, cocaine and marijuana among others. On the other hand those that are legalized include tobacco and alcohol. This research paper main interest is in the legalization of marijuana.

Marijuana has been illegalized because it is considered to be risk factors in people’s health and is believed to temper with the brain. It is also associated with criminal acts such as gang behavior and is discouraged. The purpose of this research paper is to address the reasons why marijuana should be made legal.

Among the reasons that support the legalization of marijuana include: the medical basis that marijuana has some benefits and that the state could gain revenue from the trade of marijuana as opposed to the costs incurred in the implementation of the laws against use the controlled drug. Furthermore, the legalization would enable the state to monitor and introduce legal outlets that would enforce the correct use of the drug (Barnes: 11).

Medical reasons against use of marijuana as medically unfit to use

In the argument against marijuana to be made illegal, Barnes (9) ascertains that marijuana should not be made legal in the medical field. There are certain cases that marijuana has negatively affected the immune system of the person taking the drug. In other cases, side effects like the damage of the brain and poisonous forms have occurred.

Testing must be done

Before marijuana is fully accepted as a medication, extensive testing of the drug must be done to establish the adverse effects as well as the benefits. This is because the state has the responsibility of ensuring that the drug is harmless before legalizing it. The state can consider thorough investigations before it is legalized. They may also consider what other institutions have assessed and made conclusions about the use of the drug (Barnes 11).

Measurements of elements contained in marijuana

Another reason against the use of marijuana in the medical field is the inability to have power over the purity of the drug. Marijuana is not a synthetic drug and hence it may be difficult to establish control over the natural growing marijuana. It may also develop other challenges concerned with the way productions and distribution of the drug.

However, this argument is challenged with the tobacco industry where it has been established and seems to be doing well. This is because the manufacturers of tobacco have been able to follow directives as by the government and controlled it. So, if the same measures are employed with marijuana the control may be successful.

Marijuana should not be prescribed

In his argument against marijuana to be prescribed in medical institutions Barnes (12) disputes that the state will be able to uphold its uprightness in the testing of the drug. This is because it may not be able to follow keenly the patients under testing of marijuana for medical purposes and therefore may fail to accurately get the right assessment. This is because monitoring the marijuana consumers may be difficult, thus paralyzing the testing of the drug.

Marijuana is replaceable

Barnes (11) states that the medical field does consider the use of marijuana as unnecessary as there are other drugs that could replace it and have fewer side effects. Therefore, marijuana can be avoided and the alternative drugs be used in its place. Despite some medical practitioners ignoring the use of marijuana for cancer cases like vomiting, patients have proffered marijuana to the synthetic drugs. In other cases marijuana has been argued to be of benefit to cancer patients as well as other diseases (Cervantes: 6).

Marijuana may be misinterpreted to be safe on human health

Barnes (15) mentions that if marijuana is legalized for medical reasons it may be misinterpreted by the public. This is because they may consider use of marijuana safe for their health following the states approval for medical use. As a result, marijuana would be used for leisure hence create more health problem among the public especially if excessively smoked.

Illegal businesses will be encouraged

If legalized, businesses will be set up to sell marijuana. The traders will sell it assuming that it helps cancer patients whereas just a few may benefit. This is because the people selling may be unauthorized to sell. This implies that those taking the drug may lack monitoring from a professional in the medical field hence the treatment may be inadequate or in excess or even wrong. Consequently, the state may welcome more harm instead of good.

Marijuana is different from alcohol

Smith (8) argues against marijuana saying that marijuana is harmful to health just like cigarettes. When smoked after a long time the person may develop lung problems. For expecting mothers smoking may lead to death of the fetus or cause births with deformities.

Marijuana be used only when necessary

Despite the fact that legalized marijuana may bring more evil than good, the state can consider the use of marijuana for medical situations that require the specific intervention of the drug. The use of the drug will purely be made possible by a qualified professional who by careful consideration of all options recommends the use of marijuana. Therefore, the government should not abolish the use marijuana even for medical reasons.

Marijuana does not cause health problems

Marijuana rarely causes biological problem. The persons using marijuana cannot be affected in the mind destroy the immune system or transfer effects to through inheritance. However, persistence use of marijuana can make one suffer from bronchitis if they smoke it.

This is a preventable cause because marijuana can be consumed in food for instance baked products. Additional marijuana is not known to cause serious illnesses like those caused by other drugs like cocaine. Marijuana cannot cause death if simply taken in large quantities (Legalization of marijuana.com Para 8).

On the contrary Stimson says that “the scientific knowledge is clear that marijuana is addictive and that its use significantly impairs bodily and mental functions. Marijuana use is associated with memory loss, cancer, immune system deficiencies, heart disease and birth defects, among other conditions. Even where decriminalized, marijuana trafficking remain a source of violence, crime and social integration” (p. 1)

Marijuana is a source of revenue

Another reason why marijuana should be legalized is that it is a source of revenue for the government and a source of income for the individual. Those trading marijuana gain profits that can support the family besides paying all the taxes. When the breadwinner is arrested for being in possession of the illegal drug, the family suffers. Children are transferred to children’s home separating them from their parent (Legalization of marijuana.com Para 5).

The other concern that is raised as a source of income is the spread of drug network in the name of legalized trade. Stimson (2) notes that legalization of marijuana may lead to expansion of the drug associations that sell drugs under ground. This may be an opportunity for them to sell other drugs that have much worse adverse effect. In addition, the groups selling drugs may end up selling it to underage children who should be protected from taking the drug.

Marijuana has medical benefits

As Barnes (8) point out, marijuana can be used for medical treatment of some illnesses and therefore should be legalized. Marijuana may have fewer side effects when compared to other drugs in the medical field when used to treat a certain illness. As a matter of fact, marijuana as a medical drug would work effectively and be the best drug for particular patients. For instance, marijuana is very effective in managing nausea in patients and the side effects can be tolerated to treat this symptom.

Marijuana get equal treatment as alcohol and tobacco

Gieringe (2) supports the legalization marijuana just like other drugs that have been legalized like the prominent tobacco and the consumption of alcohol. Like other drugs it has benefits and short comings which in most cases may be equal to those of the legalized drugs.

Furthermore, the use of marijuana hardly encourages the use of much superior drugs and therefore should be considered safe for the users. Another consideration is that the consumers of marijuana are not involved in unlawful behaviors and thus it is unfair to consider those consuming it to be criminals.

Stimson (3) argues against the treatment of marijuana as being similar to alcohol. In his article, he makes it clear that although both marijuana and alcohol have similar side effects, alcohol have adverse effects that are less acute as those of marijuana. On further considerations, alcohol is more widely accepted in many cultures of the world and accepted by many. Legalizing the drug would therefore go against many cultures and societies.

Report findings from the COMPAS (2) reveal that most people believe that crime will increase if marijuana is legalized. Others strongly believe that it will increase consumption behavior and some people will develop dependency. The results of being dependent will be an increase in people with deteriorating health.

Crime is believed to increase because the people who have developed dependency must keep taking the drug. Since the drug is costly, they look for more money after they have used whatever they had. Consequently, the persons may neglect their obligations perhaps in the family or at work to acquire the drug. This is undesired in the society because it affects the economy of an individual negatively.

Retractions lead to increased consumption

The individuals who are use marijuana controllably remain capable of driving as well as remain not addicted. Driver’s judgment on the road is not affected and therefore those under the influence of the drug can drive safely. For this reason, Gieringe (2) argues that restricting the marijuana will lead to increased consumption. This is because it is impossible to eradicate societal vices as they tend to increase when prohibited. Therefore, it is appropriate to legalize marijuana.

Illegal measures have failed

Punishments given for being in possession or using marijuana are futile. Regardless of whatever measures the state puts to control the use of prohibited drugs like marijuana, the public continues the consumption. Gieringe (4) indicates that strict punitive measures do not deter the users from using it.

In most cases they have secretive ways of producing and selling the same as well as consume it without being noticed. It is necessary to consider that consumption of the drug is an individual choice hence limiting or availing the drug may not be the factors to consider but rather it is an individual choice.

An example of the case of California

According to Gieringe (5) the law against the use of marijuana turned to be ineffective. The law was introduced with an aim to stop the broadening of the consumption as was introduced by a group of people. Following prohibition, the drug gained prominence as many learned to use. Apart from the consequences illegal marijuana on the people, the government used a lot of funds to curb the problem of illegal drugs.

When the public is introduced to prominent drug use Stimson (6) insists that a majority become addicted. Accordingly, the brain is affected making them unable to perform like other members of society, who do not use the drug. As a result, the affected at times have little ability to learn as before and so students who take drugs discontinue education for failure or inability to concentrate. The people who work and have jobs most often fail to perform well and are relieved from work.

Legalizing marijuana would contradict the law. Most governments have prohibited the production, distribution and consumption of illegal drugs. A law that would legalize one of the controlled drugs would send a message that with time even other drugs can be made legal. The argument is that the law would contradict itself since some of the other illegal drugs posses same adverse effects as those of marijuana (Stimson: 8). Instead the law should remain constant so that such laws do not fail as Rosenthal & Kubby (174) notes.

The budget after legalization of marijuana

Legalizing marijuana not only has advantages in the decrease in unlawful activities but also bring economic benefits in the budget of the state. Miron (2) indicates that the budget drastically incur large expenditure in the implementation of laws against marijuana.

This is opposed to the fact that, if legalized, marijuana such costs would not be realized and the state would therefore gain revenue for transactions involved in marijuana. Caputo and Brian (480) also point out that the sales made in the illegal sale of marijuana are not taxed. If the government would implement taxation, then the state would have increased revenue.

Some of the costs are as follows: The police are funded by the state budget to conduct arrests of those found with marijuana. Other cost is spent in the justice system. After the sent the criminal to prison another cost is incurred. This cost can be scraped off and the government would gain instead (Miron: 2).

Control Measures by the state

Upon legalization there should be restrictions that the state can enforce to monitor the production distribution and consumption of marijuana. First, it can consider making the any individuals who is concerned with marijuana trade to obtain a license given the state. Additionally, the concerned people must surrender the marijuana before selling for inspection of its contents and grading.

This will make it possible for the state to standardize the product assess whether there are harmful contents and allow only the safe product to be sold. Upon the assessment for the elements, the trader will then be taxed. Selling will also be done by authorized persons through specific channels. As with the use of other tobacco, it can be sold to adults in specific areas at a particular time.

Obtaining of a licenses should not be made difficult by the state or remain within the reach of a few. Those who wish for a medium scale business can be allowed to have such licenses. It may also be relevant to consider allowing individuals to plant some marijuana for own consumption although in small quantities as allowed by the state. This is similar to the home made wine made for own use and is also in line with individual liberties.

The challenged face with implementing the home grown marijuana is the control of the plant in terms of production. Another challenge is to be able to discourage children from accessing and using the drug before they are of the legal age Stimson (2). Punitive measures can also be made similar to those of the tobacco trade where the trader forfeits the license and risks being fined if they fail to adhere to rules.

Benefits of legalizing marijuana

The state will have reduced expenditure concerned with the unlawful trade of marijuana. This implies that, there will be fewer criminals the laws against will have been withdrawn. Therefore, the responsibility of taking the drug will be left upon individual judgment and for medical interventions.

More individuals will conform to the regulations about the consumption and encourage legal trade as opposed to illegal trade. The monitored distributers will make it impossible for people bellow the recommended age to obtain the drug. In addition, the quality and elements in the plant will be assessed and thus individuals will obtain safe marijuana. Lastly, the distributors will pay levy just like other businesses (Gieringer: 10).

Gieringe (7) notes that marijuana can be made legal and most problems associated with the consumption would be eliminated. If licensed individuals would be allowed to produce the crop and sell it through controlled channels of adults then the problems of misuse would decline.

There would be revenue generated and some individuals would support their families without fear of separation due to arrests. The drug can be categorized in the same group as alcohol and tobacco and receive equal treatment. With time, the sale will decline and be similar to that of tobacco. The production will also decline with the increase in production and lowering of prices. Consequently, the government will gain taxes from the sale as it loses in the illegal trade of marijuana.

The use of marijuana has adverse effects that are undesirable. The negative effects they have on human health when used for a long time are to be avoided by moderate use of the substance. Criminals are known to be drug users of among others marijuana hence it bring social evils. Since it damages the brain, students suffer and drop from school while those working fail to keep up to the task.

Although, those who are associated with marijuana are thought to be criminals the society can view them differently and legalize the use of the drug while monitoring its use. Marijuana has medical benefits and should be considered. The state also benefit from the taxes collected from the legal sale of marijuana.

Barnes, Eric. Reefer madness: Legal and moral issues surrounding the medical Prescription of marijuana , 2000. Web.

Caputo, Michael and Brian, Ostrom. “Potential Tax Revenue from a Regulated Marijuana Market: A Meaningful Revenue Source.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology , 1994, 53, 475-490.

Cervantes, Jorge. Marijuana horticulture: the Indoor/Outdoor Medical grower’s bible. North America: Van Patten Publishing, 2006.

COMPAS. Legalization of marijuana: A Compass Report for the National Post, 2004. Web.

Gieringer, Dale. Testimony of the legalization of Marijuana , 2009. Web.

Legalization of marijuana.com. Legalizing marijuana , 2010. Web.

Miron, Jeffrey. The budgetary implications of marijuana legalization in Massachusetts, 2003. Web.

Rosenthal, Ed & Kubby, Steve. Why marijuana should be legal. New York: Thunder Mouth press, 2003.

Smith, Sandra . Lee Marijuana . New York: The rasen publishing group, 1995. Web.

Stimson, Charles. Legalizing marijuana: why citizens should just say no , 2010. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, September 17). The Reasons Why Marijuana Should be Made Legal. https://ivypanda.com/essays/legalizing-marijuana/

"The Reasons Why Marijuana Should be Made Legal." IvyPanda , 17 Sept. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/legalizing-marijuana/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'The Reasons Why Marijuana Should be Made Legal'. 17 September.

IvyPanda . 2018. "The Reasons Why Marijuana Should be Made Legal." September 17, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/legalizing-marijuana/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Reasons Why Marijuana Should be Made Legal." September 17, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/legalizing-marijuana/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Reasons Why Marijuana Should be Made Legal." September 17, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/legalizing-marijuana/.

• Legalization of Marijuana: Arguments For and Against
• Legalizing Marijuana: Pros and Cons
• Reasons for Legalization of Marijuana
• Libya: Moammar Gaddafi
• Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants
• Comparing Political Systems of two countries
• Dealing with Illegal Immigrants in the US
• U.S. Government v. Unions