why marijuanas should not be legal persuasive essay

Why Marijuana Should Not Be Legal: Potential Risks and Drawbacks

Marijuana legalization has been a topic of debate for many years, with strong arguments both for and against its legality. If you are someone who is deeply concerned about the potential impact of drug use on individuals and society, and you need an argumentative essay, an online custom essay writing service with the command of the best writing experts create for you an amazing essay.

Why Cannabis Shouldn’t Be Legalised

I have always been interested in the topic of marijuana legalization and have spent a considerable amount of time researching the potential risks and benefits associated with cannabis use. While some argue that marijuana should be legalized for medical and recreational use, I strongly believe that it should remain illegal. In this essay, I will explore why I believe that why shouldn’t marijuanas be legalized. Specifically, I will examine the potential negative consequences of marijuana use, including its impact on cognitive function, mental health, and societal well-being. By sharing my perspective and research, I hope to provide a comprehensive understanding of this complex issue and shed light on the potential risks of legalizing marijuana.

So, here reasons why shouldn’t marijuanas be legalized:

The Cognitive Effects of Marijuana Use: Short-Term Memory Loss, Reduced Concentration, and Impaired Judgment

Firstly, marijuana is considered a psychoactive drug that can affect the brain and impair cognitive function. The use of marijuana can cause short-term memory loss, reduced concentration, and impaired judgment, which can increase the risk of accidents and injuries. This is especially concerning when individuals who are under the influence of marijuana operate heavy machinery or drive a car.

Mental Health Risks Associated with Marijuana Use: Depression, Anxiety, and Psychosis

Secondly, marijuana use has been linked to an increased risk of mental health problems such as depression, anxiety, and psychosis. Studies have shown that individuals who use marijuana regularly are more likely to develop these conditions than those who do not use the drug. Additionally, long-term marijuana use can cause changes in the brain’s structure and function, which may increase the risk of addiction and other negative outcomes.

The Risks of Marijuana Use for Adolescents: Long-Term Cognitive Problems and Brain Development

Thirdly, the legalization of marijuana could lead to increased availability and accessibility, which could result in more people using the drug, including young people. Research has shown that the use of marijuana during adolescence can have a negative impact on brain development and may lead to long-term problems with cognitive function.

Societal Concerns: Drug-Related Crime, Accidents, and Healthcare Costs

Lastly, legalizing marijuana would create a number of societal problems, including increased drug-related crime, a rise in drug-related accidents and injuries, and an increase in healthcare costs associated with marijuana use.

The legal status of marijuana has been widely debated, with opinions ranging from its potential benefits such as increased tax revenue and reduced incarceration rates to its potential risks such as negative impacts on individuals and society. As we grapple with this issue, it is important to consider the health and safety of all involved and to gain a full understanding of the evidence before making any decisions. The choice on whether or not to legalize marijuana should be based on an analysis of both the data and the values and concerns of those affected by this issue.

Why Marijuana Should Not Be Legal: Tips Tips On Writing Essay

Writing a well-crafted why marijuanas should not be legal essay requires careful planning and attention to detail. When tackling a topic as controversial as the legalization of marijuana, it is important to approach the subject with a clear and well-informed perspective. In order to write a persuasive and effective essay, it is essential to conduct thorough research, use credible sources, structure your essay carefully, consider counterarguments, use clear and concise language, and edit and revise your work. By following these guidelines, you can create a well-argued and compelling marijuana should not be legalized article that persuades readers to see your perspective on the issue.

Do your Research

Before you begin writing why we shouldn’t legalize weed, make sure you have a solid understanding of the potential risks and drawbacks associated with marijuana use. This may involve reviewing scientific research, examining statistics and data, and considering the perspectives of experts in the field.

Use Credible Sources

When citing evidence to support your argument, be sure to use credible sources such as peer-reviewed journals, government reports, and reputable news outlets. Avoid relying on biased or unreliable sources.

Structure your Essay Carefully

A well-organized informative essay should have a clear introduction that sets out your argument, several well-supported body paragraphs that present evidence and analysis, and a concise conclusion that summarizes your main points and restates your thesis.

Consider Counterarguments

When presenting your argument, be sure to consider and respond to potential counterarguments. This will help strengthen your essay and demonstrate that you have considered multiple perspectives on the issue.

Use Clear and Concise Language

Be sure to use clear, concise language throughout your essay. Avoid using overly complex or technical terminology, and make sure your arguments are easy to follow and understand.

Edit and Revise

Once you have completed a first draft, take the time to edit and revise your essay. Look for spelling and grammar errors, as well as any areas where your argument could be strengthened or clarified. Consider seeking feedback from a teacher or peer to help you improve your essay. With these tips in mind, you can create a compelling argument against the legalization of marijuana.

Related posts:

• The Great Gatsby (Analyze this Essay Online)
• Pollution Cause and Effect Essay Sample
• Essay Sample on What Does Leadership Mean to You
• Visualizing My Future: A Reflection on Where I See Myself in Five Years

Improve your writing with our guides

Youth Culture Essay Prompt and Discussion

Why Should College Athletes Be Paid, Essay Sample

Reasons Why Minimum Wage Should Be Raised Essay: Benefits for Workers, Society, and The Economy

Get 15% off your first order with edusson.

Connect with a professional writer within minutes by placing your first order. No matter the subject, difficulty, academic level or document type, our writers have the skills to complete it.

100% privacy. No spam ever.

• Departments
• Program Finder
• Admissions Services
• Course Directory
• Academic Calendar
• Hybrid Campus
• Lecture Series
• Convocation
• Strategy and Development
• Implementation and Impact
• Integrity and Oversight
• In the School
• In the Field
• In Baltimore
• Resources for Practitioners
• Articles & News Releases
• In The News
• Statements & Announcements
• At a Glance
• Student Life
• Strategic Priorities
• Inclusion, Diversity, Anti-Racism, and Equity (IDARE)
• What is Public Health?

The Evidence—and Lack Thereof—About Cannabis

Research is still needed on cannabis’s risks and benefits. 

Lindsay Smith Rogers

Although the use and possession of cannabis is illegal under federal law, medicinal and recreational cannabis use has become increasingly widespread.

Thirty-eight states and Washington, D.C., have legalized medical cannabis, while 23 states and D.C. have legalized recreational use. Cannabis legalization has benefits, such as removing the product from the illegal market so it can be taxed and regulated, but science is still trying to catch up as social norms evolve and different products become available. 

In this Q&A, adapted from the August 25 episode of Public Health On Call , Lindsay Smith Rogers talks with Johannes Thrul, PhD, MS , associate professor of Mental Health , about cannabis as medicine, potential risks involved with its use, and what research is showing about its safety and efficacy. 

Do you think medicinal cannabis paved the way for legalization of recreational use?

The momentum has been clear for a few years now. California was the first to legalize it for medical reasons [in 1996]. Washington and Colorado were the first states to legalize recreational use back in 2012. You see one state after another changing their laws, and over time, you see a change in social norms. It's clear from the national surveys that people are becoming more and more in favor of cannabis legalization. That started with medical use, and has now continued into recreational use.

But there is a murky differentiation between medical and recreational cannabis. I think a lot of people are using cannabis to self-medicate. It's not like a medication you get prescribed for a very narrow symptom or a specific disease. Anyone with a medical cannabis prescription, or who meets the age limit for recreational cannabis, can purchase it. Then what they use it for is really all over the place—maybe because it makes them feel good, or because it helps them deal with certain symptoms, diseases, and disorders.

Does cannabis have viable medicinal uses?

The evidence is mixed at this point. There hasn’t been a lot of funding going into testing cannabis in a rigorous way. There is more evidence for certain indications than for others, like CBD for seizures—one of the first indications that cannabis was approved for. And THC has been used effectively for things like nausea and appetite for people with cancer.

There are other indications where the evidence is a lot more mixed. For example, pain—one of the main reasons that people report for using cannabis. When we talk to patients, they say cannabis improved their quality of life. In the big studies that have been done so far, there are some indications from animal models that cannabis might help [with pain]. When we look at human studies, it's very much a mixed bag. 

And, when we say cannabis, in a way it's a misnomer because cannabis is so many things. We have different cannabinoids and different concentrations of different cannabinoids. The main cannabinoids that are being studied are THC and CBD, but there are dozens of other minor cannabinoids and terpenes in cannabis products, all of varying concentrations. And then you also have a lot of different routes of administration available. You can smoke, vape, take edibles, use tinctures and topicals. When you think about the explosion of all of the different combinations of different products and different routes of administration, it tells you how complicated it gets to study this in a rigorous way. You almost need a randomized trial for every single one of those and then for every single indication.

What do we know about the risks of marijuana use?  

Cannabis use disorder is a legitimate disorder in the DSM. There are, unfortunately, a lot of people who develop a problematic use of cannabis. We know there are risks for mental health consequences. The evidence is probably the strongest that if you have a family history of psychosis or schizophrenia, using cannabis early in adolescence is not the best idea. We know cannabis can trigger psychotic symptoms and potentially longer lasting problems with psychosis and schizophrenia. 

It is hard to study, because you also don't know if people are medicating early negative symptoms of schizophrenia. They wouldn't necessarily have a diagnosis yet, but maybe cannabis helps them to deal with negative symptoms, and then they develop psychosis. There is also some evidence that there could be something going on with the impact of cannabis on the developing brain that could prime you to be at greater risk of using other substances later down the road, or finding the use of other substances more reinforcing. 

What benefits do you see to legalization?

When we look at the public health landscape and the effect of legislation, in this case legalization, one of the big benefits is taking cannabis out of the underground illegal market. Taking cannabis out of that particular space is a great idea. You're taking it out of the illegal market and giving it to legitimate businesses where there is going to be oversight and testing of products, so you know what you're getting. And these products undergo quality control and are labeled. Those labels so far are a bit variable, but at least we're getting there. If you're picking up cannabis at the street corner, you have no idea what's in it. 

And we know that drug laws in general have been used to criminalize communities of color and minorities. Legalizing cannabis [can help] reduce the overpolicing of these populations.

What big questions about cannabis would you most like to see answered?

We know there are certain, most-often-mentioned conditions that people are already using medical cannabis for: pain, insomnia, anxiety, and PTSD. We really need to improve the evidence base for those. I think clinical trials for different cannabis products for those conditions are warranted.

Another question is, now that the states are getting more tax revenue from cannabis sales, what are they doing with that money? If you look at tobacco legislation, for example, certain states have required that those funds get used for research on those particular issues. To me, that would be a very good use of the tax revenue that is now coming in. We know, for example, that there’s a lot more tax revenue now that Maryland has legalized recreational use. Maryland could really step up here and help provide some of that evidence.

Are there studies looking into the risks you mentioned?

Large national studies are done every year or every other year to collect data, so we already have a pretty good sense of the prevalence of cannabis use disorder. Obviously, we'll keep tracking that to see if those numbers increase, for example, in states that are legalizing. But, you wouldn't necessarily expect to see an uptick in cannabis use disorder a month after legalization. The evidence from states that have legalized it has not demonstrated that we might all of a sudden see an increase in psychosis or in cannabis use disorder. This happens slowly over time with a change in social norms and availability, and potentially also with a change in marketing. And, with increasing use of an addictive substance, you will see over time a potential increase in problematic use and then also an increase in use disorder.

If you're interested in seeing if cannabis is right for you, is this something you can talk to your doctor about?

I think your mileage may vary there with how much your doctor is comfortable and knows about it. It's still relatively fringe. That will very much depend on who you talk to. But I think as providers and professionals, everybody needs to learn more about this, because patients are going to ask no matter what.

Lindsay Smith Rogers, MA, is the producer of the Public Health On Call podcast , an editor for Expert Insights , and the director of content strategy for the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Could Medical Marijuana Help Address the Opioid Epidemic?

Policy Is Public Health

Medical Marijuana Laws Linked to Health and Labor Supply Benefits in Older Adults

Related Content

The Threat to Abortion Rights You Haven’t Heard Of

How to Offer Support and Find Strength on a Trauma Anniversary

Mental Health in the Workplace: A Conversation Bridging Research and Practice

Activity, Sleep & Dementia

Rev. Pamula Yerby-Hammack Breaking the Stigma of Mental Health

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:

• In Debate Over Legalizing Marijuana, Disagreement Over Drug’s Dangers

In Their Own Words: Supporters and Opponents of Legalization

Table of contents.

• About the Survey

Survey Report

Public opinion about legalizing marijuana, while little changed in the past few years, has undergone a dramatic long-term shift. A new survey finds that 53% favor the legal use of marijuana, while 44% are opposed.  As recently as 2006, just 32% supported marijuana legalization, while nearly twice as many (60%) were opposed.

Millennials (currently 18-34) have been in the forefront of this change: 68% favor legalizing marijuana use, by far the highest percentage of any age cohort. But across all generations –except for the Silent Generation (ages 70-87) – support for legalization has risen sharply over the past decade.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted March 25-29 among 1,500 adults, finds that supporters of legalizing the use of marijuana are far more likely than opponents to say they have changed their mind on this issue.

Among the public overall, 30% say they support legalizing marijuana use and have always felt that way, while 21% have changed their minds; they say there was a time when they thought it should be illegal. By contrast, 35% say they oppose legalization and have always felt that way; just 7% have changed their minds from supporting to opposing legalization.

When asked, in their own words, why they favor or oppose legalizing marijuana, people on opposite sides of the issue offer very different perspectives. But a common theme is the danger posed by marijuana: Supporters of legalization mention its perceived health benefits, or see it as no more dangerous than other drugs. To opponents, it is a dangerous drug, one that inflicts damage on people and society more generally.

The most frequently cited reasons for supporting the legalization of marijuana are its medicinal benefits (41%) and the belief that marijuana is no worse than other drugs (36%) –with many explicitly mentioning that they think it is no more dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes.

With four states and Washington, D.C. having passed measures to permit the use of marijuana for personal use, 27% of supporters say legalization would lead to improved regulation of marijuana and increased tax revenues. About one-in-ten (12%) cite the costs and problems of enforcing marijuana laws or say simply that people should be free to use marijuana (9%).

Why Should Marijuana Be Legal? Voices of Supporters

Main reason you support legalizing use of marijuana…

“My grandson was diagnosed with epilepsy a year ago and it has been proven that it helps with the seizures.” Female, 69

“I think crime would be lower if they legalized marijuana. It would put the drug dealers out of business.” Female, 62

“Because people should be allowed to have control over their body and not have the government intervene in that.” Male, 18

“I think that we would have more control over it by allowing a federal agency to tax and regulate it like alcohol.” Male, 25

The most frequently mentioned reason why people oppose legalization is that marijuana generally hurts society and is bad for individuals (43% say this). And while many supporters of legalization say that marijuana is less dangerous than other drugs, 30% of opponents have the opposite view: They point to the dangers of marijuana, including the possibility of abuse and addiction.

About one-in-five opponents of legalization (19%) say marijuana is illegal and needs to be policed, 11% say it is a gateway to harder drugs and 8% say it is especially harmful to young people. A small share of opponents (7%) say that while the recreational use of marijuana should be illegal, they do not object to legalizing medical marijuana. 1

Why Should Marijuana Be Illegal? Voices of Opponents

Main reason you oppose legalizing use of marijuana…

“It’s a drug and it has considerable side effects. It should not be used recreationally, only for medicinal use.” Female, 20

“It’s a drug that makes you stupid. It affects your judgment and motor skills and in the long term it makes you lazy.” Male, 52

“It gets too many people on drugs. It would put too many drugs on the street, we don’t need that.” Male, 84

“I’m thinking of my child. I don’t want her to try this. I know it’s not good for her health or brain.” Female, 33

“We have enough addictive things that are already legal. We don’t need another one.” Male, 42

Current Opinion on Legalizing Marijuana

The pattern of opinion about legalizing marijuana has changed little in recent years. Beyond the wide generation gap in support for legalization, there continue to be demographic and partisan differences.

Majorities of blacks (58%) and whites (55%) favor legalizing marijuana, compared with just 40% of Hispanics. Men (57% favor) continue to be more likely than women (49%) to support legalization.

Nearly six-in-ten Democrats (59%) favor legalizing the use of marijuana, as do 58% of independents. That compares with just 39% of Republicans.

Both parties are ideologically divided over legalizing marijuana. Conservative Republicans oppose legalizing marijuana by roughly two-to-one (65% to 32%); moderate and liberal Republicans are divided (49% favor legalization, 50% are opposed).

Among Democrats, 75% of liberals say the use of marijuana should be legal compared with half (50%) of conservative and moderate Democrats.

Other Opinions: Federal Enforcement of Marijuana Laws

The new survey also finds that as some states have legalized marijuana – placing them at odds with the federal prohibition against marijuana – a majority of Americans (59%) say that the federal government should not enforce laws in states that allow marijuana use; 37% say that they should enforce these laws. Views on federal enforcement of marijuana laws are unchanged since the question was first asked two years ago.

In contrast to overall attitudes about the legal use of marijuana, there are only modest differences in views across partisan groups: 64% of independents, 58% of Democrats and 54% of Republicans say that the federal government should not enforce federal marijuana laws in states that allow its use.

A substantial majority of those who say marijuana should be legal (78%) do not think the federal government should enforce federal laws in states that allow its use. Among those who think marijuana should be illegal, 59% say there should be federal enforcement in states that allow marijuana use, while 38% say there should not be.

Concerns About Marijuana Use

While most Americans support legalizing marijuana, there are concerns about public use of the drug, if it were to become legal. Overall, 62% say that if marijuana were legal it would bother them if people used it in public; just 33% say this would not bother them. Like overall views of legalizing marijuana, these views have changed little in recent years.

There is less concern about the possibility of a marijuana-related business opening legally in people’s own neighborhood: 57% say it would not bother them if a store or business selling marijuana opened legally in their neighborhood, while 41% say this would bother them.

And just 15% say they would be bothered if people used marijuana in their own homes; 82% say this would not bother them.

As might be expected, there are sharp differences in these concerns between people who favor and oppose legalizing marijuana. A large majority of opponents of marijuana legalization (85%) say they would be bothered by public use of the drug, if it were legal; about four-in-ten supporters (43%) also say they would be bothered by this. On the other hand, a majority of opponents of legalization (65%) say they would not be bothered if people used marijuana in their own homes; virtually all supporters of legalization (97%) would not be bothered by this.

And while 77% of those who oppose legalizing marijuana say, if it were legal, they would be bothered if a store or business selling marijuana opened in their neighborhood, just 12% of supporters of legalization say this would bother them.

About Half Say They Have Tried Marijuana

Overall, 49% say they have ever tried marijuana, while 51% say they have never done this. Self-reported experience with marijuana has shown no change over the past two years, but is higher than it was early last decade: In 2003, 38% said they had tried marijuana before, while 61% said they had not.

About a quarter of those who have tried marijuana (12% of the public overall) say they have used marijuana in the past year. Similar percentages reported using marijuana in the prior 12 months in two previous surveys, conducted in February 2014 and March 2013.

Men (56%) are 15 points more likely than women (41%) to say they have ever tried marijuana.

About half of whites (52%) and blacks (50%) say they have tried marijuana before. Among Hispanics, 36% say they have tried marijuana, while 63% say they have not.

Across generations, 59% of Baby Boomers say they’ve tried marijuana before; this compares with 47% of Generation Xers and 52% of Millennials. Among those in the Silent generation, only 19% say they have ever tried marijuana. Nearly a quarter of Millennials (23%) say they have used the drug in the past year, the highest share of any age cohort.

There is little difference in the shares of Democrats (48%) and Republicans (45%) who say they’ve tried marijuana. However, there are differences within each party by ideology. By a 61%-39% margin, most conservative Republicans say they have never tried marijuana. Among moderate and liberal Republicans, about as many say they have (52%) as have not (48%) tried marijuana before.

Among Democrats, liberals (58%) are more likely than conservatives and moderates (42%) to say they’ve tried marijuana.

While a majority of those who say marijuana should be legal say they’ve tried the drug before (65%), 34% of those who support legalization say they’ve never tried marijuana. Among those who say marijuana should be illegal, 29% say they have tried it before, while 71% say they have not.

• These are volunteered responses among those who oppose legalizing marijuana. A 2013 poll found that, among the public overall, 77% said that marijuana had “legitimate medical uses.” ↩

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

9 facts about Americans and marijuana

Most americans favor legalizing marijuana for medical, recreational use, 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, most popular, report materials.

• March 2015 Political Survey

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

• 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 .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

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

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

Douglas Miguel

Mizzou毕业证成绩单 密苏里大学哥伦比亚分校毕业证

Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia

Fernanda Melo

Antonella Riem

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Ancizar Betancourt

Joceline Chabot

Hip International

Mert Topkar

Humanity: An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism, and Development

Nils Gilman

Italian journal of gynaecology & obstetrics

Andri Efstathiou

EAGE Marine Seismic Workshop: Focus on Middle East and North Africa 2009

Daniel Trad

The Horticulture Journal

Tariq Rafique

Parasitology Research

Juan Pedro Luna Arias

Ngô Tấn Nam Nguyên

Journal of Neurosciences in Rural Practice

Lijo K. Joy (RCSS)

Computer Science and Information Technologies

MUHAMMAD HUSEIN SONANG AFIANSYAH HARAHAP

OncoImmunology

Journal of HIV and Human Reproduction

Placid Ugoagwu

Huda Abdul Kader

Abel Hernández

Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy

Kevin Magill

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

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
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Research Council (US) Committee on Substance Abuse and Habitual Behavior. An Analysis of Marijuana Policy. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1982.

An Analysis of Marijuana Policy.

• Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

CONCLUSIONS

For the last decade, concern with health hazards attributable to marijuana has been rising. The hearts, lungs, reproductive functions, and mental abilities of children have been reported to be threatened by marijuana, and such threats are not to be taken lightly. Heavy use by anyone or any use by growing children should be discouraged. Although conclusive evidence is lacking of major, long-term public health problems caused by marijuana, they are worrisome possibilities, and both the reports and the a priori likelihood of developmental damage to some young users makes marijuana use a cause for extreme concern.

At the same time, the effectiveness of the present federal policy of complete prohibition falls far short of its goal--preventing use. An estimated 55 million Americans have tried marijuana, federal enforcement of prohibition of use is virtually nonexistent, and 11 states have repealed criminal penalties for private possession of small amounts and for private use. It can no longer be argued that use would be much more widespread and the problematic effects greater today if the policy of complete prohibition did not exist: The existing evidence on policies of partial prohibition indicates that partial prohibition has been as effective in controlling consumption as complete prohibition and has entailed considerably smaller social, legal, and economic costs. On balance, therefore, we believe that a policy of partial prohibition is clearly preferable to a policy of complete prohibition of supply and use.

We believe, further, that current policies directed at controlling the supply of marijuana should be seriously reconsidered. The demonstrated ineffectiveness of control of use through prohibition of supply and the high costs of implementing such a policy make it very unlikely that any kind of partial prohibition policy will be effective in reducing marijuana use significantly below present levels. Moreover, it seems likely to us that removal of criminal sanctions will be given serious consideration by the federal government and by the states in the foreseeable future. Hence, a variety of alternative policies should be considered.

At this time, the form of specific alternatives to current policies and their probable effect on patterns of use cannot be determined with confidence. It is possible that, after careful study, all alternatives will turn out to have so many disadvantages that none could command public consensus. To maximize the likelihood of sound policy for the long run, however, further research should be conducted on the biological, behavioral, developmental, and social consequences of marijuana use, on the structure and operation of drug markets, and on the relations of various conditions of availability to patterns of use.

• Cite this Page National Research Council (US) Committee on Substance Abuse and Habitual Behavior. An Analysis of Marijuana Policy. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1982. CONCLUSIONS.

Recent Activity

• CONCLUSIONS - An Analysis of Marijuana Policy CONCLUSIONS - An Analysis of Marijuana Policy

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

How marijuana’s reclassification could change U.S. drug policy

Amna Nawaz Amna Nawaz

Azhar Merchant Azhar Merchant

Leave your feedback

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-marijuanas-reclassification-could-change-u-s-drug-policy

This month, President Biden announced the Justice Department is planning a shift in the federal approach to marijuana, reclassifying it from a Schedule I drug to Schedule III. This would put it in the same category as Tylenol and ketamine. It would classify it as a drug that has the potential for abuse but has medicinal benefits. Amna Nawaz discussed more with Natalie Fertig of Politico.

Read the Full Transcript

Notice: Transcripts are machine and human generated and lightly edited for accuracy. They may contain errors.

Amna Nawaz:

This month, President Biden announced the Department of Justice is planning a historic shift in the federal approach to marijuana, reclassifying it from what's known as a Schedule I drug to Schedule III.

This would make federal treatment of marijuana far less restrictive and consider it less dangerous, putting it in the same category as Tylenol with codeine and ketamine. It would classify it as a drug that has potential for abuse, while still being acknowledged for its medicinal benefits.

The president talked about the decision in a video posted on X.

Joe Biden, President of the United States: Far too many lives have been upended because of failed approach to marijuana. And I'm committed to righting those wrongs. You have my word on it.

Joining us now is Natalie Fertig. She's federal cannabis policy reporter for Politico.

Natalie, thanks for being here.

Natalie Fertig, Federal Cannabis Policy Reporter, Politico:

Thanks for having me.

So this is the next step in a reclassification process that the president began back in 2022, right? So walk us through the timeline here. Where in that process are we now?

Natalie Fertig:

So, we just began a 60-day comment period, where the DOJ said, we have now made our formal decision. We have issued a draft rule that we're going to reschedule cannabis.

So the 60 days started last week, and now this could end five months from now or this could end six or seven years from now, depending on if there's legal challenges in that process.

OK, so still a lot we don't yet know, right?

We should note, we have seen a real sea change when it comes to cannabis legalization in America over the past decade or plus.

If you take a look at the map, some 24 states have legalized marijuana possession for adults. Some 38 states have established medical marijuana programs. So more than half of all Americans now live in states where marijuana is recreational, legal at the state level.

So what does this classification or what would this classification change in a practical way?

There's a lot of things that it would not change, actually. But the main difference that it would have is on the cannabis industry itself in the states where it is legal.

It would change the amount of taxes that they have to pay, meaning there might be more money in the cannabis industry's pocket, which means they could expand in legal states.

And what does that mean? There's some, what, 15,000 cannabis dispensaries in the country right now.

So, potential tax changes? Does it change how they interact with banks or anything else?

It's not clear exactly how the big banks will approach the change in schedule. That's one of those remain to be seen once this — all the dust settles.

But what — it would have an impact on the amount of taxes that they pay.

It's also been reported that dispensaries would have to register with the DEA, like other pharmacies would. Is that true? And how would that change the industry?

So, under Schedule III or under Schedule I, where they currently are, they need to register with the DEA. They do not currently. And so one of the other questions of rescheduling is, will the DEA start to enforce some of the rules that the cannabis industry is currently already breaking, like getting registered with the DEA?

So this is something President Biden mentioned in that video he released too, was the impact on the criminal justice system, in particular, people who have already been convicted of marijuana-related crimes.

What would this change mean for them, either retroactively or people who are currently incarcerated?

One of the biggest criticisms of Biden's rescheduling movement is that it doesn't have a big impact on people who have criminal records, especially at the state level.

The majority of people who have criminal records for cannabis are in the state criminal justice system, not in the federal criminal justice system. Biden did issue some pardons for people with low-level nonviolent marijuana offenses, but that's just a couple thousand people.

We do know the proposal needs to move through the DEA. How are they likely to look at this? Do we know if that proposal is going to move through, and when would we see that kind of approval?

Yes, so what we just saw recently was the DEA and the DOJ coming out and saying we have looked at the review that was sent to us by HHS, and we are recommending a reschedule.

People get to comment on that. There might be some legal challenges to that. And so, when the dust settles, there would need to be some big changes or big challenges for the DEA to change its mind on that. It's likely to be a reschedule. But then that reschedule is also likely to get challenged in the courts, which means in the end this might be up to the court system.

It's so fascinating too when you take a look back and you see the America in which this is all unfolding.

We can now say — there was a study published in the journal "Addiction" last month that showed marijuana use now surpasses daily alcohol consumption in the U.S. for the first time in history. And Americans have very different views when it comes to pot right now.

You look at the latest Gallup numbers from a poll last year, found some 70 percent of adults now support legalization. That is the highest number ever reported in that survey. What does your reporting tell you about the why behind all of this, why President Biden is pushing for these changes now?

Well, a big part of that sea change has come from the youngest generation. Gen Z and millennials, my generation, are much more likely to be consuming cannabis than generations before them.

And they're also much more likely to poll in favor of cannabis. And Biden is heading into a really important election right now. He's not necessarily doing as well among those voters, the younger voters, as he would like to. So there's some hope that, potentially, amongst Democrats, something like this with marijuana could push some of those voters that are skeptical or annoyed or frustrated with the president to turn out to vote in November.

We will see if it does, in fact.

Natalie Fertig, federal cannabis policy reporter for Politico, great to have you here. Thanks so much.

Thanks. Thanks for having me.

Listen to this Segment

Watch the Full Episode

Amna Nawaz serves as co-anchor of PBS NewsHour.

Azhar Merchant is Associate Producer for National Affairs.

Support Provided By: Learn more

More Ways to Watch

• PBS iPhone App
• PBS iPad App

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

Reason Why Marijuana Should Be Legal

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

• Why Marijuana should be Legalized
• Arguments Against Legalization

Why Marijuanas Should Be Legal: Essay Conclusion

Works cited.

Of all the illegal drugs in existence, Cannabis Sativa (most popularly known as marijuana) is the most commonly used substance (Iftikhar et al. 7699). The World Health Organization documents that 2.5% of the world’s population indulge in the usage of this drug, therefore making it the most popular psychoactive substance.

Despite this apparent popularity of the drug, it remains illegal in many countries, including the USA. Recent scientific research has revealed that the effect of marijuana on a person’s health may not be as potent as previously thought. With this revelation and the increased use of the drug among the population, there have been calls for the government to consider legalizing this popular recreational drug.

Calls for legalizing marijuana have been countered by vocal opposition from people advocating for the drug to be kept illegal since it has many adverse effects. This “Why Marijuanas Should Be Legal” essay will set out to argue that marijuana should be legal since the harmful effects of this substance are not as dire, and legalization would result in many benefits for society. The argumentative paper will rely on research to reinforce this claim.

Why Marijuana Should Be Legalized

Marijuana is a favored recreational drug, which means that its commercial significance is high due to the high demand for the product. Under the current situation where the drug is deemed illicit, the government cannot benefit monetarily from commerce with this drug. This is an essential consideration since data on the prevalence of Marijuana indicates that the US is still the world’s largest single market for the medication (Hammond et al. 221).

The government could gain much revenue if the drug were legal and taxes imposed. As it currently stands, the sale of the drug only benefits players in the black market who produce and sell the product. These players are primarily criminals who have become very powerful from the money obtained from commerce in marijuana.

Houston, who is an outspoken advocate for the legalization of Marijuana, confirms that marijuana is the cash cow that has made the Mexican drug cartels such a formidable force. By making the drug legal, the government would benefit from revenues obtained from its sale as well as remove the monopoly held by the criminal gangs, thus making the country safer.

The government uses significant amounts of resources in enforcing its laws against marijuana. Maintaining the status quo of marijuana as an illegal substance is an expensive operation, and the taxpayer bears the financial burden.

Green documents that the US government spends billions of dollars annually to enforce prohibition efforts on marijuana (6). This money that would otherwise have been spent on more socially constructive purposes is currently being used to fund operations ranging from the carrying out of drug raids, arrests, and prosecution of drug offenders.

The expenses do not end there, as more money is needed to maintain the convicted offenders in the country’s already overstrained penitentiaries. Making marijuana legal would mean that the government would save all the money that it currently spends on enforcing the law against marijuana. This would be a prudent step since, as it is, the efforts by the government, while prohibitively high, do not appear to have significantly reduced marijuana consumption in the country.

An obvious merit of the legal industry is that it is bound by government control, which ensures that the products sold are safe for the consumer. The government can also monitor the production process and issue guidelines to ensure the consumer is not exposed to unnecessary risks.

Since marijuana is illegal, its production and distribution are unregulated, which means that the quality of the product is unguaranteed. Part of the contamination also comes from the pesticides used on the plant. Legal crops have strict government controls on pesticides, which minimize the risks to the individual. Montoya et al. reveal that since marijuana is an illegal drug, there are no guidelines or controls for its cultivation, and it is not known whether the pesticides used are safe for humans (4).

In addition to this, the illegal status of marijuana means that most of it is grown indoors to reduce the risk of discovery by law enforcement. Indoor-grown marijuana is perceived to be more contaminated than marijuana grown naturally since indoor cultivation involves the use of additives to maximize yield (Montoya et al. 4).

Legalization of marijuana would give the government greater control over the product, which would make it safer for the user. Currently, the market is unregulated, and dealers are constantly increasing the potency of the drug to attract more customers. The potency of marijuana is changed by altering the primary active chemical in marijuana, THC, which is the component that causes the mind-altering effects of marijuana intoxication.

Montoya et al. attribute the increased potency to the popularity of indoor cultivation, which involves the practice of cloning from a variety of cannabis with high THC content (2). The more potent marijuana is, the higher the increase of cannabis-related harms such as psychotic and anxiety effects. Legalizing the drug would make it possible for the government to monitor the content of the drug just as the alcohol content in beverages is monitored. This would reduce the health risks that result from highly potent marijuana.

Marijuana has scientifically proven medical benefits for its consumers. Marijuana has been documented to improve symptoms associated with multiple sclerosis. The efficacy of marijuana in this area has been so significant that pharmaceutical companies have begun using Sativex, a derivative of cannabis, in the care of people with multiple sclerosis (Baratta et al. 3).

Clinical trial research on the therapeutic role of marijuana in pain management has shown that the drug demonstrated significant pain relief and induced relaxation, hence relieving anxiety and depression (Baratta et al. 2). These findings are corroborated by reports by the WHO, which indicate that cannabinoids alleviate symptoms such as nausea and vomiting in chronically ill patients. Making marijuana legal would ensure that it is more readily available for the sick, who would exploit it for its curative properties.

Arguments against Legalization

Despite all the advantages that can be gained from legalizing marijuana, there are critical adverse effects that opponents of legalization point to. The most significant of these claims is that marijuana results in adverse physical and mental effects on the user. Hammond et al. state that heavy marijuana use impairs a person’s ability to form memories, and users who have taken high doses of the drug may experience acute psychosis (9).

Montoya et al. proceed to state that contaminated marijuana has the potential to cause lung disease and respiratory problems (4). Considering these adverse effects, proponents of legalization assert that it would be reckless for the government even to consider making marijuana legal. While it is true that marijuana can have adverse effects, these extreme effects are mostly restricted to heavy users and those users who consume contaminated or high-potency marijuana.

A primary concern of the public is the link between drug use and involvement in crime. Opponents of legalization state that marijuana would result in citizens, especially the youth, engaging in criminal activities as a result of drug use. This stereotypical view is unfounded, as research indicates that marijuana use does not play an essential role in fostering a general involvement in crime.

A study conducted by Lu et al. on the association between cannabis use and subsequent criminal charges on an individual suggested that marijuana was associated with subsequent criminal activity (565).

However, the authors noted that the bulk of this involvement was in various types of drug-specific crime, such as possession and distribution of the drug. Marijuana does not, therefore, result in general crime involvement, and a considerable proportion of its users only get into the penal system because of the use or possession of drugs.

A common argument raised by proponents of legalizing marijuana is that its legalization would result in a phenomenal increase in the number of users. This reasoning is based on the assumption that, at present, many people who would be users of marijuana are deterred because of the legal action, such as jail time that they would suffer if they consumed the product.

Houston suggests that this argument is not based on facts since the rate of marijuana use in the Netherlands (a country reputed for its relaxed laws on marijuana, which permit the purchase and consumption of regulated portions of the drug) is significantly lower than in the US where prohibitive laws against the drug are in place.

Marijuana consumption is pervasive in the US, and this drug has become the favorite recreational drug despite measures by the government to curb its supply and discourage its usage. This has resulted in the issue of whether to legitimize marijuana or not being heavily debated in the country.

From the arguments given in this paper, it is clear that many benefits will be reaped from the legalization of marijuana. These advantages include increased access to the drug for people who require it for medical purposes, a regulated market that would make the product safer, and the financial gains that the government would achieve through taxation and savings from the money that is currently used to enforce the law against marijuana.

While proponents of legalization point to the adverse effects of the drug, this paper has shown that many research findings available today indicate that the adverse effects of marijuana are mild and that the drug has functional medicinal properties.

This paper set out to argue that the government should legalize marijuana. To this end, the paper has engaged in discussions about the merits and demerits of such a move. Overall, evidence suggests that making marijuana legal would benefit society more than having it classified as an illegal substance.

Citizens who are keen on bringing about development should, therefore, petition the government to legalize the drug so that society can enjoy the benefits stated at the same time avoiding the enormous costs incurred by efforts to keep the drug illegal.

Baratta, Francesca, et al. “ Cannabis for Medical Use: Analysis of Recent Clinical Trials in View of Current Legislation. ” Frontiers in Pharmacology , vol. 13, May 2022.

Green, Jesse. “ Federalism, Limited Government, and Conservative Outcomes: The Republican Case for Marijuana Legalization .” Social Science Research Network , Jan. 2023.

Hammond, Chris, et al. “ Cannabis Use Among U.S. Adolescents in the Era of Marijuana Legalization: A Review of Changing Use Patterns, Comorbidity, and Health Correlates. ” International Review of Psychiatry , vol. 32, no. 3, Feb. 2020, pp. 221–34.

Iftikhar, Amna, et al. “ Applications of Cannabis Sativa L. in Food and Its Therapeutic Potential: From a Prohibited Drug to a Nutritional Supplement. ” Molecules , vol. 26, no. 24, Dec. 2021, p. 7699.

Lu, Ruibin, et al. “ The Cannabis Effect on Crime: Time-Series Analysis of Crime in Colorado and Washington State. ” Justice Quarterly , vol. 38, no. 4, Oct. 2019, pp. 565–95.

Montoya, Zackary T., et al. “ Cannabis Contaminants Limit Pharmacological Use of Cannabidiol. ” Frontiers in Pharmacology , vol. 11, Sept. 2020.

World Health Organization (WHO). Management of substance abuse: Cannabis . Jan. 2010. Web.

• Marijuana Legalization in California
• Legalization of Cannabis in the State of New Jersey
• Legalization of Marijuana: Arguments For and Against
• South African Non-Violent Protests Against Apartheid
• Invasion of Personal Privacy During Air Travel
• Executive Branch of Russian Government
• A Dose of Realism: The Syrian Situation
• American Jobs Act Proposed By President Obama
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, October 17). Reason Why Marijuana Should Be Legal. https://ivypanda.com/essays/marijuana-should-be-legal/

"Reason Why Marijuana Should Be Legal." IvyPanda , 17 Oct. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/marijuana-should-be-legal/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Reason Why Marijuana Should Be Legal'. 17 October.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Reason Why Marijuana Should Be Legal." October 17, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/marijuana-should-be-legal/.

1. IvyPanda . "Reason Why Marijuana Should Be Legal." October 17, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/marijuana-should-be-legal/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Reason Why Marijuana Should Be Legal." October 17, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/marijuana-should-be-legal/.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

I Was Skeptical of the ‘Zombie’ Trump Case. I Stand Corrected.

By Randall D. Eliason

Mr. Eliason is a former chief of the fraud and public corruption section at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.

When it came to the New York prosecution of Donald Trump, I was skeptical.

I was among the commentators who criticized the case . It was old, the so-called zombie case that had been kicking around for years. It appeared to rest on several untested and controversial legal theories. It seemed like a relatively trivial bookkeeping charge, unworthy of a prosecution of a former president.

But I have to hand it to the Manhattan prosecutors. Over the course of this trial, they convinced me — as they clearly and overwhelmingly convinced the jury. There will be an appeal, of course, and Mr. Trump may have some persuasive legal arguments.

But the jury’s quick decision reinforces the district attorney’s view that this was a righteous prosecution and about much more than mere accounting entries.

Every trial is a human story. The successful trial attorney presents that story to the jury in a way that’s internally consistent, supported by the evidence and aligns with the jurors’ life experiences and common sense.

The prosecutors here did a masterful job of telling a compelling story, not of faulty bookkeeping but of criminal election inference. They presented evidence of a criminal conspiracy to influence the 2016 presidential election. It began when a major publishing company, American Media Inc., through its chief executive, David Pecker, agreed to help the Trump campaign manipulate the information that voters received by using unlawful means. Information harmful to the Trump campaign was suppressed, while false stories were spread about his rivals.

That scheme went far beyond the hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels. It included purchasing and suppressing other negative stories (like the one from the former Playboy model Karen McDougal).

Although these so-called catch-and-kill schemes were not inherently illegal, prosecutors demonstrated that the scheme was carried out through several different unlawful methods. These included creating false documents in A.M.I.’s records; false statements Michael Cohen, who was then Mr. Trump’s lawyer and fixer, made to a bank related to an account he opened for a shell corporation to handle the payments; and false documents reflecting the tax status of the payments to Mr. Cohen.

And the scheme also included the primary allegation: that the catch-and-kill payments amounted to illegal contributions to the Trump campaign — a crime for which A.M.I. was investigated and Mr. Cohen was later convicted.

In this light, prosecutors argued, the false documents in the records of the Trump Organization should be viewed as some of the final criminal steps in an ultimately successful scheme to suppress damaging information. After Mr. Trump won the election, the conspirators needed to cover their tracks by falsifying paperwork to explain the reimbursements to Mr. Cohen.

Speaking of the state’s star witness Mr. Cohen, it’s an understatement to say he arrived at the courthouse with some baggage. But during his testimony, the prosecutors handled him in textbook fashion. They didn’t run from his flaws as a witness, including prior false testimony under oath. They demonstrated why, despite all his previous lies, the jurors could believe what they heard him say on the stand. And the prosecutors were able to corroborate almost everything he said with multiple documents and other witnesses.

I think the prosecutors took a tough case and put on a seamless, coherent and persuasive presentation. But I also think that even the prosecutors, if they were being candid, would agree they got an assist.

The defense case, like Churchill’s infamous pudding, had no theme. The defense didn’t have to prove anything, but Mr. Trump’s lawyers failed to suggest any coherent, alternative explanation of events that might have raised a reasonable doubt in the minds of one or more jurors.

The defense might have had a shot with a targeted argument, admitting to an indiscretion with Ms. Daniels and the hush-money payment but insisting that the state had failed to prove that Mr. Trump knew his company’s internal bookkeeping documents were false or that he caused them to be made with intent to cover up another crime.

Instead, the defense was vintage Trump: I’m a victim. Deny everything. Everyone else is lying and out to get me. Witnesses who could safely be largely disregarded must instead be attacked and destroyed.

Whether this was at the insistence of the client or the counsels’ own decision, it led the defense to make inconsistent arguments that simply were not credible. Once you lose your credibility with jurors by denying things that seem clear and obvious, they are less likely to believe what you say about the things that are really in dispute.

There is most likely a chapter yet to be written in this case. I remain something of a skeptic when it comes to whether these convictions will survive long term — although I'm the first to admit I've already been proved wrong once.

In presiding over the case, Justice Juan Merchan largely accepted the prosecution’s legal theories. Within that legal framework, the prosecutors did a great job presenting their case, just as the judge did in handling the trial. But I think some of those legal theories are potentially vulnerable.

There are questions about the proper meaning of intent to defraud under New York law, and whether that standard could be met by these internal documents. There’s a potential issue with using a federal campaign finance law as the basis for turning a state misdemeanor into a felony. This case raised these and other novel questions, and the defense will now have a chance to argue those questions before a higher court.

But during this trial, the prosecutors made a convincing case. They demonstrated why, as part of a successful, larger conspiracy to criminally interfere with the presidential election, these false business records really mattered. They told a compelling story, and they told it well.

Randall D. Eliason is a former chief of the fraud and public corruption section at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and teaches white-collar criminal law at George Washington University Law School. He blogs at Sidebars .

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — Marijuana Legalization — Why Weed Should Be Legal: a Case for Legalizing in America

Why Weed Should Be Legal: a Case for Legalizing in America

• Categories: Marijuana Marijuana Legalization

About this sample

Words: 563 |

Updated: 29 March, 2024

Words: 563 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Table of contents

Economic impact, social considerations, medical advancements.

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. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: 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

1 pages / 656 words

2 pages / 1007 words

2 pages / 1060 words

7 pages / 3080 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 Legalization

The debate over the dangers of Marijuana has been a dominant topic of conversation for a long time. Unfortunately, many individuals have a problem accepting the plant’s demonstrated medicinal effects. Opinions on medical [...]

Legalizing marijuana has been a topic of debate for many years, with strong arguments on both sides of the issue. However, as scientific research and public opinion continue to evolve, it is becoming increasingly clear that the [...]

Marijuana, also known as cannabis, has been used for various medical purposes for centuries. However, its legality and acceptance as a medical treatment have been a subject of debate for many years. This essay will argue that [...]

The debate surrounding the legalization of medical marijuana has been a contentious and evolving issue in many countries around the world. While it remains illegal in some places, an increasing number of regions are recognizing [...]

Pot, grass, dope, Mary Jane, boom, 420, ganja, weed. Formally known as Cannabis it is classified as a cannabinoid drug of which should be legalized for recreational use inside the democracy of Australia. The purpose of speaking [...]

The topic of cannabis legalization has been a subject of heated debate in the United Kingdom for several years. Cannabis, often referred to as weed, marijuana, pot, or hemp, is a psychoactive drug derived from the Cannabis plant [...]

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