Legalize Marijuana?
Considering the Legalization of Marijuana
The federal government outlawed marijuana in 1937, a decision that remains controversial to this day. Proponents argue that growers have profited for decades and should be taxed accordingly. In the health care arena, medical marijuana is legal in a number of states, a decision with which seventy percent of Americans agree (Vlahos 18). Those against legalization cite potential health hazards, similar to those faced by smokers of tobacco. Although only mildly physically addictive, marijuana can be psychologically addictive. It is often called the "gateway" drug since users sometimes progress to more powerful illegal substances. Members of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) are against legalization for reasons that some may find surprising.
Marijuana is called a "soft" drug and seems more socially acceptable than other drugs; after all "smoking and eating are more naturally associated with pleasure than is injection" (Schmidt-Semisch & Paul 712). Many people have argued that marijuana is harmless and all that legalization would really do is reduce its criminal aspects. Some have argued that prohibition of alcohol did little to decrease consumption and resulting crime ultimately led to the law's repeal. Marijuana, some insist, is not really any different than alcohol.
The influence of alcohol and marijuana on the brain are similar. Driving under the influence of either alcohol or cannibis has been shown to be dangerous. Both are grounds for arrest, fines, imprisonment, and loss of driving privileges. Yet only cannibis is illegal...
It is an interesting dichotomy. There are a number of things that are not good for us and yet they are legal to buy and use. One of the arguments that proponents use for the legalization of marijuana is the role of individual choice, as with alcohol, on purchase, consumption and
engagement of activities under the influence.
"The fundamental principle underlying drug policy is the assumption that the substances that are objects of control cause harm directly or at least have the potential to cause serious harm to society" (Schmidt-Semisch & Paul 711). In light of
legislation that affects consumption of alcohol, cigarettes and trans fats, one can fairly question whether the government should continue to outlaw the use of marijuana for recreational use, since it has been shown, as with the other three products, to have negative health consequences. However, alcohol, cigarettes and trans fats are still legal products.
Human nature is such that some people will use them in moderation while others will
abuse them. To what extent can, or should, a government protect individuals from themselves?
Unlike cigarettes, alcohol and trans fats, there are documented cases in which marijuana use has actually been beneficial. Medical marijuana is already legal in
Canada. In the U.S., fifteen states currently have legislation allowing its use, albeit with different possession limits and widely varying fees.
California, for example has a possession limit of eight ounces usable and eighteen plants; costs range from $33-$66 an ounce. Montana and Nevada each allow a user to have just one ounce of usable cannibis; that ounce will set one back more than $150 in Nevada but $25 or less in Montana (ProCon.org). According to the Harvard Mental Health Letter, "Consensus exists that…
