This paper analyzes the debate surrounding marijuana legalization in the United States, exploring why public opinion has become increasingly divided on the issue. The paper compares marijuana to alcohol, examines the role of organized crime in illegal drug markets, discusses medical versus recreational use, and evaluates how legalization could reduce criminal activity. Using examples from international policy (Netherlands) and evidence from documentaries and research, the paper argues that criminalization causes more societal harm than legalization would, and that many common objections to cannabis are based on misconceptions rather than scientific evidence.
There is much controversy regarding the legalization of marijuana. Although the issue has become increasingly popular in recent years, the substance continues to be considered taboo in many areas around the world, particularly in the United States. Approximately half of the people in the U.S. believe that marijuana should be legalized. While this demonstrates that a large part of the country's population supports cannabis, it also reveals how support for the substance remains evenly divided. This means there is still a long way to go before marijuana becomes widely accepted as a normal concept.
What is particularly intriguing about the U.S. context for marijuana legalization campaigns is the country's long history of dealing with the drug. Americans have attempted to criminalize marijuana since the early twentieth century, as the matter became divisive and authorities launched widespread campaigns to raise awareness about the supposedly negative effects the substance had on consumers and society as a whole.
As the country has adopted more liberal attitudes toward various concepts, people have become less hesitant about actively supporting marijuana use and attempting to help the public understand that the drug is not as harmful as many believe.
Laws prohibiting marijuana use and ownership are increasingly being challenged across numerous states in the U.S. Many contemporary Americans have begun to acknowledge the benefits associated with cannabis consumption and believe there is nothing wrong with using it openly. To support their position, these individuals often draw comparisons between marijuana and alcohol. Because alcohol is accepted throughout the U.S. and has been present in communities for hundreds of years, many people believe it is perfectly normal for it to be legal.
Despite the fact that alcohol visibly damages society, it remains widely accepted and authorities remain hesitant about implementing harsher laws regarding it. This inconsistency in legal treatment has become central to the legalization debate.
Doug Benson's documentary Super High Me illustrates this comparison effectively. The film follows the protagonist smoking marijuana for thirty days while studying the effects on his body and mind. While the documentary eventually demonstrates that the substance has little to no negative effects on the human body, it also explores alcohol use and how it can be far more damaging. The film's end credits are dedicated to one of the protagonist's friends who died in a traffic accident caused by a drunk driver.
People frequently compare drunk driving with driving under the influence of cannabis. It would obviously be incorrect to say that marijuana does not affect people's ability to drive; however, the exact effects it has on driving ability have not been thoroughly studied. According to the evidence available, "Drunk driving kills 28 people a day in America, according to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Studies have not found similar results for driving while high, and it's not even clear that marijuana even increases the number of traffic accidents" (Pointdexter). Even though marijuana use affects individuals, it is not comparable to the effects that alcohol has on the brain and motor control.
When considering marijuana usage, people often find it difficult to determine whether the drug should be available in controlled environments for specific populations or if it should be widely available as a recreational drug. This remains a highly debated topic, as some support marijuana use only in controlled medical settings, while others believe it should be accepted as a recreational drug.
The distinction between medical and recreational cannabis use represents one of the central points of contention in the legalization debate. Some advocates support limited access only for patients with documented medical needs, while others argue that recreational use among adults should be permitted under the same regulatory framework as alcohol.
Contrary to common belief, marijuana is not fully legal in the Netherlands. The authorities there have implemented legislation that makes the substance semi-legal. This means they can observe who purchases it and when, and the drug is not available to minors or on the streets. The country has experienced significant financial benefits from making cannabis accessible in regulated environments. The tourism industry has also benefited as people have traveled to the country to experience its cannabis culture.
The Dutch model demonstrates that legalization need not mean an unregulated free-for-all. Instead, it can involve careful state oversight, age restrictions, and quality control—measures that protect public health while generating tax revenue and reducing black-market activity.
Probably one of the most important concepts associated with marijuana legalization is the fact that legalizing it would significantly discourage criminal activity. People wanting to purchase the drug would no longer have to interact with criminals to buy it. Many individuals today risk considerable danger by engaging with dubious marijuana sellers, inadvertently contributing to criminal enterprises themselves. Characterizing a person consuming marijuana as a criminal seems absurd from a general perspective, yet individuals who choose to use cannabis in prohibition jurisdictions do violate laws and expose themselves to environments filled with dangerous drug dealers.
Many people have limited understanding of marijuana production in areas where it is illegal. While some isolated cases involve individuals growing small quantities for personal use, in most situations, complex criminal groups control production and distribution. As one source notes, "In 2004, the Vancouver Sun quoted Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), who explained that in Canada most marijuana-growing businesses are not 'mom-and-pop' operations, but dangerous organized crime businesses" (Boyd & Carter 3).
People often fail to understand the connection between marijuana prohibition and criminal organizations exploiting those who want to consume the drug. If marijuana were legalized, drug cartels would suffer serious blows as people who previously purchased from them would have access to safe, legal environments. Even though cartels profit from numerous illegal enterprises, cannabis typically represents a third or even half of their income. If these criminal organizations could no longer sell marijuana, they would have less money to fund other illegal activities, fewer resources to bribe politicians, and reduced capacity to maintain control through violence. Marijuana legalization would thus play an important role in destabilizing dangerous cartels inside and outside of the U.S. (Pointdexter).
The criminal environments associated with producing and selling marijuana in criminalized areas involve far more than the simple transaction of selling the drug. These environments typically contain individuals willing to commit murder or do whatever is necessary to protect and expand their businesses (Boyd & Carter 3).
In many cases, cannabis opponents cite criminal environments as evidence against legalization, attempting to have the public associate marijuana with criminal thinking. However, this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of causation: prohibition creates these criminal markets, not the substance itself. The U.S. war on drugs has taken various positions regarding marijuana throughout recent decades. For many supporters of this war, the primary objective appears to be maintaining marijuana's criminalization. "The government stubbornly classifies it as a dangerous Schedule I substance with no medical value, despite stacks of evidence to the contrary" (Pointdexter).
It would certainly be inaccurate to claim that marijuana has no adverse effects, as it typically involves inhaling smoke. However, many people believe marijuana is worse than cigarettes, for example. This belief stems partly from the fact that marijuana is usually smoked without a filter. In reality, though, marijuana smokers usually limit their consumption to a few cigarettes per day, while cigarette smokers often go through an entire pack daily without considering it abuse.
The health effects of marijuana remain a point of contention, but the evidence suggests that the relative risks have been exaggerated by prohibition-era messaging. Claims about marijuana's dangerousness often lack scientific support when compared directly to legal substances.
All things considered, marijuana continues to be a controversial drug. It is difficult to determine whether individuals opposing its legalization do so because they have strong arguments—most of which have been refuted—or whether they do so simply because they have become accustomed to the substance being criminalized.
You’re 97% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.