Category: Marijuana

Introduction

Marijuana, which is a psychoactive drug, is the most widely used illicit substance in the world and its scientific name is Cannabis Sativa (Kailash 335). The main active ingredient of Marijuana is Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) which is both a stimulant and a hallucinogen (Kailash 335). It is estimated that about 4% of the world population (about 162 million people) use it on a daily basis for recreational purposes (Kailash 337).

The production, preparation, trade and use of marijuana has been prohibited in most parts of the world and a lot of resources are used every year to combat it. For years, there has been a long standing controversy on the prohibition of marijuana. There are however more reasons for its legalization than for maintaining its current illicit status.

Reasons for Legalizing

Foremost, the prohibition of Marijuana goes against the individuals rights to Liberty and freedom of choice. Individuals who use marijuana do so conscientiously and are aware of the dangers of using it. The government should not prohibit personal use unless its use by an individual affects other people rights or otherwise. In any case, the negative effects of using marijuana are far less than those of using alcohol and tobacco which are both ironically legal.

In fact, alcohol and tobacco related diseases and accidents are one of the leading causes of deaths in the USA, and the medical costs incurred in treating those disease runs into billions (United Nation Office on Drugs and Crime 165). According to the proponents of Marijuana no single health related death has been reported to have been caused directly by Marijuana.

Additionally, the cost of policing marijuana is very high; for the last 30-40 years, governments have spent Billions of dollars yet the trade is still thriving. These resources could instead be used to provide social services such as education and medical care. The failure to tackle the demand side of the illicit drugs market makes the commodity scarce, expensive and its trade lucrative: currently, illegal trade in drugs is worth about $322 Billion globally (United Nation Office on Drugs and Crime 170).

In the process this has attracted highly organized criminal gangs and has engendered corruption in many regions of the source countries supplying this drug. Drug related violence is also common as criminal gangs fight for the control of the lucrative trade. Thus, decriminalization of marijuana is likely to reduce the attractiveness of the trade and consequently the demand for the drug (Kailash 342).

Besides cost and inefficacy, the fight against marijuana has been found to be racially biased. Prejudice against young black males for instance has led to their arrest rates for possession of marijuana being much higher compared to that of white counterparts.

In a study carried out in the state of California, it was found out that even though the prevalence of marijuana use was higher among whites than blacks, the arrest rates for marijuana possession related charges showed that more blacks than whites were incarcerated for marijuana possession and use (Levine et al).

The study found out that blacks were arrested for simple marijuana possession far out of proportion to their percentage in the total population, since while they constituted 7% of the total population, they accounted for as much as 20% of marijuana arrestees (Levine et al).

The above figures are based on the categorization of Hispanics as whites. Were Hispanics to be classified as an independent race, as they often are, the variance between the black and white statistics would be even much higher. These disproportionate statistics show the inefficiency of the system in fighting the use of marijuana and its vulnerability to abuse.

One of the reasons why marijuana use has been criminalized is apparently because of its potential for dependence. But marijuana is not as addictive as it is popularly perceived to be. Its low addictive risk may be explained by the fact that marijuana use patterns are usually more periodic than that of most other drugs.

At the same time, withdrawal symptoms for cannabis such as restlessness, irritability, mild agitation, insomnia, nausea, sleep disturbance, sweats and intense dreams, are mild and last for a short period only (Jain & Balhara, 223). Indeed, marijuana has lower addiction potential compared to the legal and more popularly used tobacco. Potential for addiction is therefore not a sufficient reason for the criminalization of cannabis sativa use.

Yet another reason cited in support of the criminalization of marijuana is that it is a gateway to the abuse of hard drugs such as heroine and cocaine. This perceived risk is however highly disproportionate to actual risk as has been found in a number of studies.

The basis cited for the possibility of soft drugs leading to abuse of hard drugs is founded on the premise that being addicted to the narcotic effects of one drug may raise the need to experience higher narcotic experience. The second presumption is that use of soft drugs provides one with access to hard drugs.

The networks formed for the sake of acquisition of illegal soft drugs will more often than not also enable one to access hard drugs as it is argued. Unfortunately, this hypotheses, that soft drug use is usually a stepping stone to hard drugs, has had quite a significant influence on the policy and law making processes (Melberg et al). This is in view of the fact that research has found out that the relationship between illegal soft drug abuse and the subsequent hard drug use is not conclusive.

A research study by Melberg et al came to the conclusion that there are a number of mechanisms that can explain the gateway effect. It therefore cannot be so readily and conclusively declared that use of soft drugs has an obvious causal-effect relationship with subsequent hard drug use.

Proponents of marijuana criminalization have also relied on the perceived relationship between marijuana use and crime. The belief that marijuana use leads to higher probability for the commission of crime by users has been entrenched by the fact that many studies have found that approximately 60% of arrestees test positive for marijuana use (Pacula & Kilmer).

This is hardly a plausible basis for describing the relationship between the use of marijuana and crime as causal since a positive THC test in the blood of arrestees only implies that marijuana was used in the past month, and not immediately prior to the commission of crime. At the same time, the blood of arrestees isnt tested for the presence of other drugs other than marijuana. However, in their study, Pacula & Kilmer found out that there was a positive association between marijuana use and crime.

Nevertheless, the findings of their study are limited to the extent that it could not be immediately established whether marijuana use merely increased the probability of arrest or actually influenced one to commit crime. Thus, it would be wrong to base the argument of illegalization of marijuana on inconclusive evidence.

Additionally, prohibition ignores the benefits of Marijuana such as its medicinal, industrial and agricultural use. The prescription of marijuana on medical grounds has been hampered by its criminalization.

For instance, the American College of Physicians (ACP) in a position paper, stated that physicians have had to be increasingly cautious in their wording (when discussing the substance) so as not to appear that they are aiding or abetting patients in obtaining cannabis (9). Since aiding and abetting the acquisition of Schedule I Controlled Substances, like marijuana, is a criminal offence in the United States.

The risk of legal action usually discourages medical practitioners from prescribing marijuana based drugs even when such drugs present the only hope for their patients. In addition, further research on medical use of Marijuana has been hampered by its illicit status since being in its possession is illegal (American College of Physicians 5).

Conclusion

All the above facts point to the need for the serious consideration of the legalization of marijuana. As we have seen, the arguments proposed by proponents of marijuana criminalization have either had no scientific backing, or have been the result of misrepresentation of research findings. There is also little evidence to support the claim that its criminalization has had any benefits to the society so far. Legalization on the other hand seems capable of offering more benefits than costs.

Works Cited

American College of Physicians. Supporting Research into the Therapeutic Role of Marijuana. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians, 2003. Print.

Jain, Raka & Yatan, Balhara., Neurobiology of Cannabis Addiction. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol, 52.3 (2008): 217232. Print.

Kailash, Chand. Should drugs be decriminalized? Yes. British Medical Journal, 335 (2007): 966  90. Print.

Levine, Harry., Jon, Gettman. & Loren, Siegel. Targeting Blacks for Marijuana: Possession Arrests of African Americans in California, 2004-08. Drug Policy. 2010. Web.

Melberg, Hans., Anne, Bretteville-Jensen. & Andrew, Jones. Is cannabis a gateway to hard drugs? 2007. Web.

Pacula, Rosalie & Beau, Kilmer. Marijuana and Crime: Is There A Connection Beyond Prohibition? Rand. 2003. Web.

United Nation Office on Drugs and Crime. UN World Report on Drugs. New York: United Nations Publications, 2007. Print.

Origin of Marijuana

Marijuana is a drug obtained from a plant called cannabis sativa. Another name for cannabis sativa is hemp. The plant was grown in the United States of America for agricultural purposes during the colonial period up to the beginning of the 20^th century. The plant was used in the manufacture of birdseed, clothes, lacquer, and ropes. Marijuana is the most commonly abused drug among the youths and adults in the United States and other countries in the world. As noted by Iversen (2001), the drug originated from China.

History of Marijuana

Marijuana has been used for medicinal and recreational purposes for long. Its use dates back in 3727 BC and it originated from China. Marijuana was considered to be a poisonous drug but it was used in the treatment of rheumatism, absent-mindedness, and malaria among other diseases that were widely spread.

From China, the drug made its way to India where it was used for recreational purposes. In addition, marijuana was widely used by Muslims as a recreational drug because the Koran condemns alcohol consumption. The use of marijuana later spread to other continents gradually.

From India, the use of marijuana spread to North Africa and Europe. Finally, Spain introduced Marijuana in the United States in 1545. The drug became the most widely used in the United States and by 1611; it was planted as a staple crop (Joy, Watson & Benson, 1999).

Negative effects of marijuana use

According to Iversen (2001), the use of marijuana is a health hazard. Once smoked, marijuana is absorbed in the blood stream where it lowers the pressure of the blood and at the same time increases the rate at which the heart beats. Pulse rate may go up to 20 to 50 times beyond the normal rate or even more if it is used in combination with other drugs.

Researchers have found that low blood pressure and high pulse rate puts marijuana users at a greater risk of heart attack, which is likely to take place within the first hour of smoking than normal people. There are high chances of conducting chest illnesses like heavy coughing and lung infections. Its users may develop a stinking mouth.

Studies have also shown that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) compound contained in the drug lowers the immune system of the body making the body weak to resist diseases. This makes its users vulnerable to other diseases. For pregnant mothers who indulge in the use of the drug, chances of giving birth to abnormal children are high. Miscarriages and premature births are also common. Mental disorders like insanity are associated with marijuana use (Joy, Watson & Benson, 1999).

According to Joy, Watson and Benson (1999), marijuana is associated with risky sexual behaviors that put an individual at the risk of conducting sexually transmitted diseases like gonorrhea and HIV aids. Drug users fall as victims of rape where they force other people into sex.

Drug consumption increases school dropout rate among students. Mainly, drug users perform poorly in school, the outcome that makes them quit while reducing the levels of education in the society. Finally, marijuana users tend to be violent. Some do not carry out their roles in the family like provision of basic needs. Marijuana is expensive and its addicts spend large sums of money on its purchase, the money that could have been use for other useful purposes in the family.

Advantages of marijuana

Studies conducted by American Association for Cancer Research show that marijuana is used in the treatment of many diseases like cancer, glaucoma, Ritalin, cramp, and discomfort during menstrual cycle among other diseases. It is also used to relieve stress (Iversen, 2001).

As much as the use of marijuana is beneficial, its side effects are also dangerous. Consumption of marijuana in large contents should be discouraged and avoided. If it has to be used, the user should follow the doctors prescriptions on how, when, and how much to take it to avoid its negative effects.

References

Iversen, L. (2001). The science of marijuana, London: Oxford University Press.

Joy, E., Watson J. & Benson, A. (1999). Marijuana and medicine: assessing the science base. New York, NY: National Academies Press.

Introduction

Medical marijuana is used to refer to the use of marijuana as a physician-recommended form of medication in its natural or synthetic form. The use of this naturally occurring substance as a herbal remedy dates back to several millennia, and up to date, it is still used to treat various diseases including arthritis, asthma, epilepsy, leukemia, sickle cell disease, and so on. However, its use has come under strong criticism and as this essay will point out, its use should be banned in Canada and alternative medications should be used.

Mental Disorders

Studies have consistently shown that persons who use marijuana frequently are at a higher risk of developing mental disorders such as schizophrenia, depression, or bipolar disorder than those who have not smoked at all. These side effects arise from the fact that marijuana contains compounds that can catalyze latent mental illnesses. Consequently, patients, especially those suffering from mild or severe mental conditions should not use medicinal marijuana.

In addition, older patients who have not used marijuana before have reported disturbing psychological effects including unpleasant feelings and disorientation after being treated with medicinal marijuana. The cannabinoids found in marijuana can aggravate symptoms among persons with movement disorders or nausea and hence its use should be banned in Canada.

Marijuana may increase the risk of cancer

The use of medicinal marijuana may increase the risk of having cancer, particularly if it is smoked (Jones and Carnegie, 2001). Marijuana smoking causes abnormalities in cells lining the respiratory tract, increasing the risk of a person having respiratory cancer and other respiratory diseases. Besides, similar to tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke can result in a higher probability of lung damage and pregnancy complications.

Although some studies suggest that marijuana can be used as a remedy for cancer-related anorexia, nausea, vomiting, and mood disorders, the researchers do not provide real prevalence estimates to back up such conclusions (Furler et al., 2004). An Institute of Medicine report opined that marijuana smoking introduces toxic chemicals into the body and for this reason, the plant cannot be projected to provide a clearly defined health benefit (Joffe & Yancy, 2004).

Marijuana causes diminished psychomotor performance

The use of marijuana in any form and for any purpose, whether medicinal or as a form of recreation, results in reduced psychomotor performance. This implies that persons who use medicinal marijuana are not advised to operate any vehicle, machinery, or any other potentially dangerous equipment while they are still under the influence of marijuana. Moreover, the short-term immunosuppressive effects of medicinal marijuana have not been well documented, and, even if they existed, cannot warrant the use of the substance since alternative medications with similar or comparable effects but are less harmful are already in the market (OConnell and Bou-Matar, 2007).

Negative Effects on HIV Progression

One of the most common users of medicinal marijuana in HIV patients, however, studies show that the use of this plant by the patients may have a negative impact on disease progression or drug adherence (Furler e al., 2004). For instance, marijuana smoking has been linked with an increased risk of disease progression, pulmonary aspergillosis, bacterial pneumonia and lowered drug adherence. Most of these effects occur when the marijuana is taken in through smoking. Besides, cannabinoids may have suppressive effects on the expression of several chemokines and cytokines in human T and B cells, natural killer cells eosinophils and macrophages cells. These effects may worsen an HIV patients condition.

References

Furler, M. D., et al. (2004). Medicinal and Recreational Marijuana Use by Patients Infected with HIV. AIDS patient care and STDS, 18(4), 215-228.

Joffe, A., and Yancy, W. M. (2004). Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth. Pediatrics, 113(6), e632-e638.

Jones, J., and Carnegie, A. P. (2001). Allow for the Violate Federal Drug laws? Supreme Court Debates 2001, 131-157.

OConnell, T. J., and Bou-Matar, C. B. (2007). Long term marijuana users seeking medical cannabis in California (20012007): demographics, social characteristics, patterns of cannabis and other drug use of 4117 applicants. Harm Reduction Journal, 4(16), 1-7.

Introduction

For the management of pain among patients released from healthcare facilities, prescription drugs are often used to ensure that individuals can engage in effective self-management. However, research suggests that overdoses of prescription drugs are the leading cause of accidental death in the United States (Reiman, Welty, & Solomon, 2017). Specifically, according to the report made by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2022), the drug overdose epidemic, particularly regarding the use of opioids, continues to worsen in the country. Moreover, for every drug overdose from opioids that results in death, there are several more non-fatal overdoses that adversely affect individuals emotional and physical health and economic stability. Notably, the

Looking to alternative solutions to opioids can help address this issue while also determining the effectiveness of newer methods. Specifically, cannabis has been cited as one of such alternatives that can help effectively treat pain among patients while reducing the risks of both dependence and fatal overdose as compared to opioid-based medication (Reiman et al., 2017). Bachhuber et al. (2014) found that states that have laws for medical cannabis have significantly lower state-level opioid overdose rates for mortality. The practice issue has the potential to be explored through the PICOT approach to identify whether marijuana could be a viable pain relief alternative to prescription opioids. The PICOT question for the identified health care issue is the following: in a patient population requiring pain relief (P), does marijuana represent a viable alternative medication (I) as compared to opioid-based prescription drugs (C) for alleviating the burden of pain the population (O) over a six-month period (T)? If the proposed intervention turns out to be successful, then it will be possible to help patients experiencing pain relieve it without the use of harmful and potentially addictive opioid-based medication.

Sources of Evidence

In answering a PICOT question involving the outcomes of marijuana use for pain relief as compared to opioid-based medication, multiple sources of evidence can be potentially effective. Most of the evidence is expected to come from research articles published in journal articles because it will be based on empirical findings from studies involving actual participants within a specific healthcare setting. PubMed is among the prominent databases containing multiple journal articles on the use of marijuana as an alternative to opioid prescription medication. It is important that the findings are based on evidence-based practice (EBP) because it allows for providing the most effective care solutions that are available, with the purpose of improving health outcomes among patients (Boswell & Cannon, 2018). When applied to the nursing practice, EBP enables professionals to evaluate relevant research so that they acknowledge the risks and efficacy of treatments and diagnostic tests. Findings from research suggest that the implementation of EBP can be facilitated by the promotion of their belief in such practice (Abu-Baker et al., 2021). Thus, the stronger nurses beliefs regarding EBP, the more likely they are to implement it in their practice.

Findings

Over the recent several years, medicinal cannabis has increasingly become a topic of study among researchers regarding its part in alleviating both chronic pain symptoms. Even though marijuana is not an FDA-approved medication, licensed practitioners can prescribe them to patients (Bains & Mukhdomi, 2022). Nevertheless, patients who suffer from pain continue using opioids to address chronic pain even though they have limited long-term efficacy. Researchers found that long-term opioid therapy was associated with several risks, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death. Used separately or in combination with opioid pain medication, cannabis can lower side effects, cravings, and the severity of withdrawals while also enhancing the analgesic effect.

One of the challenges that scientists encountered when researching the use of cannabis for chronic pain management was the Schedule I status of cannabis, making it difficult to carry out large-scale clinical studies on its efficacy. However, among studies that could research cannabis use for relieving pain symptoms, marijuana did show a degree of effectiveness. For instance, in their research, Reiman et al. (2017) found that patients reported successfully using cannabis along with or as a substitute for opioid medication. The patients in the study revealed that when using marijuana, they were able to use fewer opioids and that cannabis presented less unwanted side effects compared to opioid-based medication. Besides, 80% of patients reported that cannabis alone was more effective than their opioids (Reiman et al., 2017). This suggests that for individuals who substitute marijuana for opioid-based pain medication can have better outcomes with fewer undesirable side effects compared to other drugs.

The findings of the study suggested that patients involved in it overwhelmingly supported the idea that they could be more likely to use marijuana as a way of treating pain if it was more available and less stigmatized. Even though there are populations that can truly benefit from cannabis as alternative pain medicine, some people do not consider it because of social stigma and the legal limitations associated with its use. Because the prescription of opioids has not been curbed or addressed in the United States despite the growing rate of fatal overdoses and increasing dependence, cannabis should be seen as an alternative. Giving patients the option of cannabis for pain relief together or separately with the opioids option has the potential of assisting with pain relief symptoms in a safer way that causes fewer risks to health among the population.

Relevance of Findings

The findings of the studies on the effects of cannabis on relieving pain symptoms are relevant to the current PICOT question because they illustrate that marijuana use for pain relief has been widely overlooked despite the benefits it brings to patients. As the countrys legislation regulating marijuana changes and opens up more opportunities for alternative treatment, cannabis has great potential to be used for therapeutic purposes. In addition, the findings point to the need to conduct more research on this topic because the existing regulations on marijuana use limited previous studies. New findings will support the evidence-based practice and enhance it through the use of alternative pain relief methods.

Conclusion

This PICOT question paper explored the topic of alternative methods of relieving pain medication symptoms among patients with an emphasis placed on marijuana use. The consistent use of opioid-based medication as a pain relief method leads to adverse outcomes, including death from overdose. Therefore, the subject being studied is highly promising in terms of offering a new option for both scholars and practitioners to consider when dealing with patients who require assistance in relieving pain on a regular basis. Answering the PICOT question will allow for providing a basis for future studies as well as an evidence-based practice.

References

Abu-Baker, N. N., AbuAlrub, S., Obeidat, R. F., & Assmairan, K. (2021). Evidence-based practice beliefs and implementations: A cross-sectional study among undergraduate nursing students. BMC Nursing, 20(13).

Bachhuber, M. A., Saloner, B., Cunningham, C. O., & Barry, C. L. (2014). Medical cannabis laws and opioid analgesic overdose mortality in the United States, 1999-2010. JAMA Internal Medicine, 174(10), 16681673.

Bains, S., & Mukhdomi, T. (2022). Medicinal cannabis for treatment of chronic pain. StatPearls.

Boswell, C., & Cannon, S. (2018). Introduction to nursing research (5th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning

CDC. (2022). Understanding drug overdoses and deaths.

Reiman, A., Welty, M., & Solomon, P. (2017). Cannabis as a substitute for opioid-based pain medication: Patient self-report. Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, 2(1), 160166.

Introduction

Over the years, public service announcements have become a genre in themselves, creating an environment where the focus on warning and prevention warrants significant exaggerations and, at times, even the presence of logical fallacies. A closer look at one of the earlier PSAs will show that a single announcement could contain multiple fallacies due to the misuse of rhetorical devices and the misplacement of priorities (CrashCourse, 2016). By putting an excessive amount of effort into convincing people that marijuana causes significant harm, the American Medical Association (1969) made its PSA especially naïve and easy to ridicule, thus minimizing its rhetorical value and making it entirely unconvincing.

Main body

The general moral that the PSA under analysis attempts at conveying is positive in its nature. However, its delivery ruins the general impression due to the presence of multiple logical fallacies. Namely, the PSA opens with the straw man fallacy, listing the key arguments in favor of marijuana use without subverting them and, instead, representing them as inherently ridiculous (Mometrix Academy, 2018). As a result, the speaker positions himself as superior to the ostensible straw man, leading to an immediate negative response from the target audience.

In addition, the appeal to emotions, specifically, the use of epithets such as obnoxious in relation to marijuana makes the speech sound slightly cheap. Afterward, the narrator increases the negative effect of the effort at appealing to the emotions of the audience by stating that marijuana is hardly a tinker toy for experimenting with drugs (American Medical Association, 1969). Apart from being an obvious endeavor to convince without substantiated arguments, the specified statement comes across as quite pandering since it suggests that the proponents of marijuana use view it as a tinker toy (American Medical Association, 1969). As a result, while conveying an important message about a healthy lifestyle and the need to abstain from drugs, the PSA loses its power and appears to be quite ridiculous.

Afterward, the speaker makes the mistake of using the slippery slope fallacy by creating an exaggerated scenario in which the use of weed supposedly leads to the misuse of heavier drugs: its use can lead to abnormal behaviors, to psychological dependence, and to abuse of other drugs (American Medical Association, 1969). Thus, the argument that the narrator attempts at introducing to his target audience is weakened significantly (Mometrix Academy, 2018). In addition, the fact that the author does not substantiate the claims that he introduces makes the PSA take the shape of a large scare tactic instead of an honest attempt at warning the audience.

Conclusion

Finally, in its focus on contrasting the harm of marijuana with the positive effects of healthy behavior, the author makes another crucial mistake. Namely, the narrator uses the fallacies of a false dichotomy and equivocation by claiming that the human brain, after all, is made for thinking, not fumigating (American Medical Association, 1969). Suggesting that only two options are available, while also intentionally conflating the notions of fumigation and smoking.

Due to the presence of several logical fallacies in it, the PSA issued by the American Medical Association in 1969 presently produces the exact opposite effect of the intended one. Namely, it detracts from the weight of the argument and devalues the crucial message behind it, namely, that one of being responsible for ones life choices. Therefore, the PSA at hand can serve as a perfect example of how logical fallacies such as the slippery slope, the false dichotomy, and the appeal to emotions can destroy a positive message.

References

American Medical Association. (1969). Commercial  American Medical Association  Marijuana PSA (1969). Web.

CrashCourse. (2016). How to argue  Philosophical reasoning: Crash course philosophy #2. Web.

Mometrix Academy. (2018). Top 10 logical fallacies. Web.

Drugs theme is one of the broadly used for discussion in the world. Youth is in the zone of risk in taking drugs as the adolescent psychological peculiarities are that all must be tried in this life. It is not the secret that drugs comprise a great danger from simple addiction to the great health problems in the future. Marijuana is broadly used in medicine to help cancer and AIDS patients, those who suffer from insomnia, post-traumatic stress disorder, paraplegia and other diseases. Some people insist on marijuana legalization not only in medical sphere but also in every day life. The legalization of marijuana should never be allowed as it may lead to irreversible effects.

The legalized medical usage of the marijuana is one of the reasons to demand for the universal legalizing of it. Proposition 215, which was offered on November, 1996, was approved and it gave push to the questioning whether it is possible to legalize the marijuana universally (Barak, 2007). There are some countries where the use of marijuana is allowed, and the debates whether to allow it in the whole world or to forbid is the main focus for society. People from different sides offer their arguments, and some of them are rather strict, but nevertheless the common opinion was not reached. The question about marijuana legalization has been raised when scientists made an attempt to prove that it is no more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco (International Debate Education Association, 2004).

Marijuana has the hallucinatory effect on the peoples minds that may lead to criminal rise in the society (International Debate Education Association, 2004). This is the main reason for forbidding the marijuana legalization. Under the effect of marijuana, people may commit some criminal affairs as the reality perception is awry. The intoxicated mind cannot make adequate decisions, so people become uncontrollable and cannot react adequately on the situations which may appear. People, who once tried marijuana, would search for ways to appear in the hallucinatory condition one more time. Marijuana is rather expensive to buy, so there is a possibility for searching for the illegal access to marijuana or to rob people in order to get money for it.

Universal legalization of marijuana may lead to usage of harder drugs and to the demand to legalize them. Marijuana is a drug, so its legalization may be the reason for some people to demand for the legalization of other drugs as there will not be any line between good and bad drugs. Legalizing marijuana will put on edge the laws about drugs forbiddance as people would think that the legalizing of one type of drugs is the step to universal legalization of all drugs. It would be very difficult to explain that there are two types of drugs, good and bad (Gerber, 2004). The result from marijuana legalization may serve as the pusher to use harder drugs, which are more dangerous, as peoples understanding is not always right. Allowing one type of drugs, people will demand for the other type of drugs legalization. The effects from harder drugs are much more dangerous.

Universal legalization of marijuana may lead to some social problems as there are always people who against this law accepting (International Debate Education Association, 2004). The negatives of marijuana legalization may organize a lot of strikes or other actions of civil disobedience which may cause a lot of problems not only in the state but also on the world level. Civil disobedience is the problem which every state wants to get rid of, and the demonstrations connected with marijuana legalization may bring a lot of problems. The street fights, violence and other situations may possibly occur between the members of different sides in the question of marijuana legalization as this problem is very fundamental for many people.

But still there are people who are sure that the legalization of marijuana will make no harm, vice versa, it may bring some profit to the state. There are a lot of arguments which may be offered in support of drug legalization. The marijuana legalization will bring extra income to the government budges as the result of taxation of marijuana selling. To support the idea of marijuana legalization some scientists offer the idea that alcohol addiction is much more dangerous for the peoples organism than smoking of marijuana (they also insist that marijuana is not harmful for peoples health). (Cermak, 2003). The other supportive ideas about universal marijuana legalization are as follows, being on the black market, it leads to crime and violence increase and the corruption encouragement among law enforcement officials and politicians. The problem of smuggling would disappear in the case of marijuana legalization (Levinson, 2003).

So, there are a lot of reasons which support both sides, whether to legalize marijuana usage or not, but my strong opinion is that it cannot be legalized as the harmful effects from it much more numerous than benefits. Marijuana may be legalized in medical sphere but definitely not universally. Drugs are drugs and there no any benefit from their usage. Till there is at least one negative idea about drug legalization, the law cannot be accepted.

Works Cited

1. Cermak, Timmen L. Marijuana: Whats a Parent to Believe? Hazelden Publishing, 2003.
2. International Debate Education Association. The debatabase book: a must-have guide for successful debate. IDEA, 2004.
3. Barak, Gregg. Battleground: Criminal Justice. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007.
4. Gerber, Rudolph Joseph. Legalizing marijuana: drug policy reform and prohibition politics. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004.
5. Levinson, Martin H. An Extensional Approach to Drug Legalization. ETC.: A Review of General Semantics. 60.2 (2003)

Introduction

The cultivation and consumption of cannabis commonly known as marijuana (Cannabis sativa) drug for therapeutic and recreational purposes were historically legal under federal law in the United States. The therapeutic value of marijuana as a pain reliever promoted its recognition as being medicinal. In the 1930s prohibitions against marijuana use emerged with many states enacting laws under the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act, to regulate its use.

The legislation aimed at reducing the harmful effects of the drug on its users, reducing the violent criminal activities associated with marijuana use, and ensuring controllable use of other drugs. However, the prohibition of marijuana use has elicited controversy with most arguments advocating for drug policy reform more notably the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML).

NORML, a non-profit organization founded in 1970, endeavors to achieve the legalization of marijuana use in the United States and advocates for the legal and responsible usage of non-medical cannabis by adults. NORM strives to revoke the federal laws against marijuana use. NORML also offers legal assistance to those arrested over illegal marijuana use.

NORML Legal Functions

NORML seeks the repeal of laws against marijuana use through various legal mechanisms. It recommends the adoption of different legal models against marijuana use instead of total prohibition. NORML, with political undertones, campaigned for decriminalization of minor marijuana offenses in 11 states and lessening of penalties for minor offenders in all the others in the 1970s.

The NORML has many professionals including scientists, researchers, and court attorneys that help the organization to carry out its mandate. NORML lobbies for state legalization of medical marijuana use and campaigns for lesser penalties for minor offenders.

NORML has a legal committee consisting of defense attorneys that offer legal assistance to marijuana offenders. In addition, the legal committee coordinates seminars over major judicial decisions and provides legal information regarding the legal status of marijuana prohibition. The NORML criminal defense attorneys provide NORMLs position about marijuana use in courts. NORML also supports activists campaigns for the legalization of cannabis use across the country as a medical drug or recreational purposes.

Instituted in 1997, the NORML Foundation fosters public awareness by trying to highlight how expensive marijuana prohibition is and it does this through mass advertisement. Their arguments advocate for the legalization of marijuana to reduce the expenditure incurred in enforcing the anti-marijuana policies.

The NORML foundation educates the public about the disadvantages of the current state and federal legislation and offers alternative legislations. NORMLs advisory board composed of celebrities and prominent personalities help to shape public opinion concerning marijuana cultivation and use through public media.

They also support legislation geared towards decriminalization of adult marijuana use. In addition to advocating for recreational adult use of marijuana, NORML also advocates for the legalization of medical use of marijuana by patients with medical conditions like glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, and other illness in the states where the medical use of marijuana remain illegal.

Marijuana Laws in Texas

In Texas, legislation against the strict anti-cannabis laws aims at reducing the penalties for the possession of marijuana. Presently in Texas, the first possession of two ounces of marijuana belongs to Class B misdemeanor, which attracts a penalty of up to six months and or a fine of $2,000 (Gerber 2004, p.8).

Those found possessing four or fewer ounces to fall under Class A infringement, while those possessing between five and four face incarceration in jail. Third-degree offense describes possession of less than fifty but more than five pounds while those in possession of less than 2000 but more than fifty passes for a second-degree criminal offense. Moreover, a second-degree felony convict faces 99 years of incarceration or part with fines of up to $50,000.

The legislations also involve penalties for the sale or delivery of marijuana. Offenders convicted more than once if arrested with less than one pound of marijuana undergo probation and compulsory drug treatment. According to Gerber, sale of marijuana to a minor attracts a state jail felony or a fine of $1000&one-quarter ounce&180 days in jail or a fine of up to $3000&one-quarter&a fine of $10000 and two years in jail (15).

In addition, one faces up to 20 years imprisonment or $10,000 for having five pounds of marijuana while trading 50 pounds of marijuana draws fines of up to $100,000 and fines between five and ninety-nine years of incarceration

The Severity of Texas Marijuana Laws

The harsh penalties for possession of marijuana have attracted attempts to decriminalize marijuana possession and use. Legislation passed in 2007 by the Texas Legislature changed the possession of two ounces of marijuana from an automatic Class B misdemeanor to Class B or C misdemeanor (Gerber 2004, p.14). The medical use of marijuana by patients and the possession of the drug by doctors or patients is illegal in Texas. In Texas, no laws decriminalize or attempt to reverse the legislation that limits the use of marijuana for medical purposes by patients or doctors.

The possession of marijuana attracts a hefty fine or incarceration in jail in Texas. I expected that the laws had exceptions for medical marijuana use but apparently, in Texas the medical marijuana laws are non-existent. Despite these harsh anti-cannabis laws, Texas produces a lot of marijuana annually, about 69,000Ibs as estimated by the Drug Enforcement Administration (Gerber 2004, p.15).

The high number of marijuana-related arrests; about 5% of all arrests made in Texas related to the stringent anti-cannabis laws and the large harvests of the drug. In addition, Texas States legislation does not recognize medical usage of marijuana but considers it as a recreational drug. Therefore, any possession of marijuana attracts punishment from a criminal perspective.

This means that patients and medical practitioners alike do not use the drug even under severe medical conditions like multiple sclerosis. This has elicited debate concerning this legislation and the need to reform the legislation through the media and NORML Texas chapter. Individuals found driving while under the influence of marijuana attracts punishment under the Texas law, just like a punishment for drunken driving.

The anti-cannabis laws in Texas are unexpectedly very severe for they even deter medical usage of marijuana. Other states legislations are a bit lenient as they recognize the medical use of cannabis in hospitals. The medical practitioners and the patient are issued with a license to prevent them from arrest and thus freely using the drug.

Alternative Marijuana Legislation

The hefty penalties and punishment awarded to offenders of the Texas anti-cannabis laws are improper. Instead, less strict legislation to reduce the penalties and fines should be adopted (Roffman & Robert 2006, p.56). Efforts to ensure that the minor offenders found in possession of two ounces or less get a lesser sentence as opposed to the two years jail term currently given are underway.

The bill passed in 2007 gives the option for minor offenders punishment with a lesser offense than the actual penalty. In addition, Texas should review its legislation to recognize medical marijuana users are necessary, as some medical conditions require suppression of pain by cannabis drugs.

Pro-marijuana legalization groups like AIDS care and physicians groups base their arguments on the medicinal value of marijuana as a treatment drug for major illnesses. The anti-marijuana agencies on the other hand oppose the legalization of marijuana because there is no supportive evidence for the claim that it has medicinal value.

The basis of legislation in Texas is on the unfounded perception that marijuana is addictive; nevertheless, this also happens in alcohol abuse and alcohol is legal. Marijuana addiction is not as severe as alcohol addiction. The legislation is also based on the belief that marijuana has no medical use and therefore should be illegal. Research shows that marijuana has immense medical benefits in the treatment of diseases like glaucoma and cancer, which affect most Americans (Earleywine 2005, p. 68).

The legislations affect the treatment of these chronic diseases. The review of the Texas anti-cannabis laws is important due to the effects it has on the lives of the people who use it for medical reasons. The association of Marijuana alongside drugs such as Cocaine also enhances legislation against marijuana use.

Instead of the strict legislation against marijuana possession and use, the Texas State should enact lenient laws to control the cultivation, possession, and sale of this drug (Holland 2010, p.21). Penalties for handling small quantities of cannabis should be reduced to a fine instead of imprisonment.

The strict legislations encourage abuse of the drug and promote illegal trade of the drug in the black market. The strict legislations make cannabis users get access to and abuse other hard drugs like cocaine. Strict control mechanisms in place of the stringent legislation will prevent abuse of the drug and control prices. Legalizing cannabis will result in the promotion of human health but the legalization of the drug should be accompanied by control against excessive use that can be detrimental to users health.

Conclusion

NORML strives to achieve the legalization of marijuana use for recreational and medical use. It also advocates the responsible use of cannabis by adults in the United States. It is comprised of the legal committee that facilitates its efforts to repeal the existing legislation against cannabis use.

It has professional scientists, researchers, and defense attorneys that give technical support regarding the decriminalization of legislation against cannabis use. It also creates public awareness through advertising campaigns and offers alternative less-strict legislation to replace the current laws.

NORML also advocates for the medical use of marijuana by patients suffering from certain illnesses; unfortunately, the state legislations of Texas prohibit the possession or sale of cannabis with heavy punishment awarded to offenders. However, given the many benefits of the drug, controlled adult cannabis use, and medical-related use is justifiable especially now that credible scientific research proves its medicinal value.

Bibliography

Earleywine, M 2005, Understanding marijuana: a new look at the scientific Evidence, Oxford University Press, New York.

Gerber, J 2004, Legalizing marijuana: drug policy reform and prohibition Politics, Greenwood Publishing Group.

Holland, J 2010, The Pot Book: a complete guide to cannabis role in medicine, Politics, science, and culture, Park Street Press, Vermont.

Roffman, A & Robert, S 2006, Cannabis dependence: its nature consequences and Treatment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Introduction

Marijuana is a type of drug that is produced from the cannabis plant. It is actually the dried leaves and the flowers of the plant. Cannabis plant is easily grown in most parts of the world and is also a wild plant that grows in most parts of the United States. It is also a plant that is grown and sold in many parts of the world due to its expanded use all over the world. It is possible to grow the plant indoors and also outdoors since it has very simple farming techniques. The drug has been used by individuals for many ages. However the use of the plant took a new root as people started using the plant for other purposes. This includes uses such as medicinal purposes, religious purposes and also for recreation.

It has been estimated that close to 5% of the worlds population uses the drug annually with a daily consumption of about 0.8%, (Rubin, p116). The product is consumed by either smoking or oral consumption. The use of the drug has faced a lot of controversies due to its effects. Most states and countries across the world have restricted the growth, selling, distribution and also the use of the drug. However it is important to note that the use and growth of the drug is very easy such that it is challenging for the authorities to tract it down. This calls for the legalization of the drug since it would result to economic benefits which are lost by its transactions in the black market. The paper will concentrate on looking at the economic benefits of legalizing the drug and also the possible negative effects that may result. It also analyses the current laws on prohibition of marijuana and the cost of enforcing them. Finally the paper will take a look at the regions where the drug has been legalized.

Economic benefits

Reduced enforcement cost

The cost of enforcing the laws on the use of marijuana are very high as discussed in this document. This cost do very little to reduce or curb the total usage of the drug. It is actually very easy for the users, sellers and also growers of the plant not to face prosecution since there are very easy ways of evading the law. Even with the existence of the laws, the drug is still transacted in the black market, (Timothy, p56). It is unreasonable for the state to be spending all this resources on an expense that is bearing no fruit. Most of the arrests are actually very petty and they spend so much on prosecution, and also punishments of the offenders besides their maintenance in jail. Legalization of the drug in most states would be of economic benefit since the large amounts of cash that is used in the judicial process would be reduced, (Mark, p16). The total budget of the judicial expenditure would be greatly reduced and the resources would be used in other sectors of the economy.

Tax revenue

The existence of prohibition on marijuana has not been able to curb the sale or even cultivation of the plant in the United States. Since the sale and the cultivation of the plant is illegal, most individuals transact in the black market. The volume of sales from the plant is very high and the illegal traders fetch a lot of income from the trade. However, since the trade of the plant is illegal it exists in the black market and therefore it is considered a free market. The state losses a lot of tax revenue that would have however been collected if the trade of the drug was made legal, (Roy, p41).

The money that the government spends on prohibiting the use of marijuana could actually be redirected and used to control the use, cultivation and also sales of marijuana through taxation. The efforts should actually be directed to ensure that the trading of the drug has been taxed. The funds spent by the government would then be recovered through taxation of the businesses. The taxes would be on the income generated by the farmers, the sellers and the buyers of the commodity. Other incomes for the state would be derived from fees that are charged on the business such as licensing fees. It has been estimated that if the government was to legalize the usage of the drug it would collect close to $11 billion per year net income from the trade of marijuana. This does not include the tax income that is generated from the sellers, the distributors and also the producers. This indicates how much the government is losing as income tax from the prohibition of marijuana.

Industrial development

Legalizing marijuana would lead to the development of new industries within the economy, (Roy, p38). Marijuana is considered a cheaper drug than alcohol and tobacco which are some of the legalized drugs. This means that if marijuana was legalized, most individuals would switch to its use as opposed to alcohol and tobacco. The use of the drug would have higher demand. This would stimulate the economy to have more industries for the production of the drug. More industries would then translate to more growth within the economy. The rise of such industries would also stimulate the development of other related industries such as tobacco and alcohol industries. This is because it would come in as a competitor for the customers who use this substance in the market. This would have an overall effect of ensuring industrial growth within the economy. Legalizing marijuana will face out the black market and promote the creation of industries.

Reduced unemployment rate

The industries that are created from the legalizing of marijuana would open a lot of job opportunities for the unemployed in the economy. This would improve the state of the economy by reducing the number of the unemployed and thus the unemployment rates. This is a great improvement in the growth of the economy. The presence of the industries would stimulate other sectors related to the marijuana business such as farming, whole sale distribution and also small scale business. Such sectors would require people to work in them which is another way of reducing unemployment rates. As the demand rises with the legalization, more people will farm the crop and this would require laborers. Other related sectors would employ a multitude of people. Having created such job opportunities, more people within the economy will be able to earn a living and improve the standards of living within the economy, (Mark, p24). The income earned by these individuals is also taxed which is a source of revenue for the government.

Economic growth

The income generated from the legal use of marijuana would help to stimulate the economic growth. The resources that are wasted in its prohibition would be redirected to more economical use thus creating income for the state, (Timothy, p67). Such income can then be used to settle the national debts within the economy. It can also be used to improve the state of the economy in other sectors such as improving on the infrastructures of the economy. The regions that grow the plant for example would greatly benefit from such infrastructure through creation of markets. Regions that grow high amounts of the plant can also export the plant to other regions which in another way will create more income. Total effect of legalizing the plant including the jobs created would move increase the total GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the country which is used to measure the economic growth.

Medicinal Value

Legalizing of the usage of the plant would have a positive effect on the health sector of the economy. Some of the in toxic substances that are found in the plant have medicinal value and used to cure various diseases. This includes substances such as tetrahyrocannabinol (THC) which is used to cure a variety of diseases. The drug is used to cure diseases such as cancer and reduce effects of HIV. It also helps to reduce nausea, vomiting, weight loss and anorexia, (Randall, p48). It has been proven to cure spasticity and other painful conditions especially those related to the neurons. Other medical conditions treated by the drug include asthma and glaucoma. Legalizing the drug would therefore be of great benefit to the economy since it would help to improve the health conditions of many people and maintain a healthy nation.

Indirect positive effects

Marijuana has an effect of increasing the appetite of the individuals. This would be of economic benefit since it would induce people to consume products from other sectors of the economy. This would raise demand for food products and thus promoting the performance of food industries in the economy, (Roy, p46). On the other hand it would have positive effects on the society. Marijuana has a relaxing effect and this would result to reduced conflicts and crimes within the economy. It would help to have more stable societies which can be able to work hard to improve their lifestyle and improve the economy. However excessive use may lead to over relaxing and thus wastage of labor within the economy.

Negative effects

The legalization of the drug would not be without negative effects. One of the major effects would be on the health of individuals who use the drug excessively. Some of the conditions that are related to use of marijuana include liver cirrhosis, heart attack, high blood pressure, depression, lung cancer, anxiety and respiratory problems, (Randall, p65). This is mainly brought by the high amounts of ammonia, nitrogen oxide and hydrogen cyanide that is present in the plant. Such health effects would add a cost on the medical sector of the economy. The relaxing effect that is found in marijuana if used excessively may affect the active labor of the economy and this may result to reduced output within the economy. Other effects may include increase in criminal charges due to crimes that are committed by individuals under the influence of marijuana.

Laws on marijuana

There are various laws that exist in different states regarding the possession, selling and buying of marijuana. In a state like Washington the charges on the possession of the drug differs. If one is in possession of marijuana that is less than 40grams one is deemed to have a mandatory minimum sentence of one day and a maximum of 90 days or a fine between $250 and $500. Possession of marijuana of more than 40 grams has a maximum imprisonment of 5 years and a fine of $10, 000, (Robert, p15). The sale or cultivation of marijuana that is less than 40 grams attracts a sentence of not more than 6 months and a fine of $10000. If more than 40 grams it will attract a maximum sentence of 5 years or a penalty of $10,000. Selling marijuana to the minors attracts a double penalty of the former. The manufacture or delivery of the drug attracts a sentence of 90 days and a fine of $1,000. In other states such as California, possession of the drug less than 28.5 grams only attracts a fine of $100 and 6 months maximum sentence and a fine of $ 500 if more than 28.5 grams, (Robert, p22).

Selling of marijuana in school grounds attracts a sentence of 10 days and a fine of $500 if its less than 28.5 grams. If its more than that, the jail term is 6 months and a fine of $500. The cultivation of Marijuana in the state with an exception of patients and caregivers attracts a jail term of 16 to 36 months. Sale of the drug as a gift of 28.5 grams or less will be fined $500. Sales of any other amount attracts a jail term of 2 to 4 years. If the sale is by a minor it will attract a fine of $250. If sold to an individual over 14 years the jail term is 3 to 5 years while if sold to a minor below the age of 14 the penalty is 3 to 7 years in jail without any fine. In most of the states, the possession of little grams of marijuana is a petty offense punishable up to a maximum of 15 days. The jail terms and the fine penalties however increase with greater amounts of possession of the drug. The jail terms and the fines on the sale of the drug also differ from state to state but lies between 3 years and 18 years depending on whether the drug was sold to a minor, on school grounds and also on the amount that was sold, (David, p35). The larger the amounts and the risky the situation, the higher the charges and the penalties.

Cost of enforcing laws on marijuana

In the United States, the cost of enforcing laws on Marijuana is estimated at $7.5 billion per year. Very many arrests are made over the year mainly due to the possession of the drug. This has increased the cost of punishing the offenders of the laws on Marijuana. It costs the tax payers around $10 million per year in the enforcement of the laws. Out of these cost, the police cost is estimated at $3.8 the cost of imprisoning the inmates is estimated at $3.3 and the cost of pressing for charges in the courts is estimated at $853 million, (David, p29). The penalties that are evoked on the offenders have not been able to bring down the usage of the drug in the United States.

The cost of enforcing however has been increasing over the years and it is estimated that currently the annual cost has gone as high as $15 billion annually due to the increased use of the drug. In addition to this, the local and the states government spend roughly $16 billion per year to enforce laws on Marijuana. In over all it has been estimated that 25% to 40% of the total states costs which totals to $31 billion is related to marijuana prohibition. In a state like California, they managed to save a total of 95 million dollars from their move of decriminalization of the drug. Researchers have indicated that most states spend more than 200 Million dollars annually in criminal justice trying to enforce laws on marijuana prohibition, (Robert, p26). The research done on the cost of enforcing laws on marijuana indicate that such costs usually do very little to reduce the use of the drug. It is in fact considered as one of the most grown cash crop in America.

Legal use of marijuana

In the United States there are about 10 states that have legalized the use of marijuana but this is only restricted to medical use, (Randall, p67). These states include Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon Arizona and also Washington. The use of the drug by such patients must be approved by a doctor.

Conclusion

In conclusion, marijuana has more economic benefits than negative effects within the economy. The cost that the government undertakes in prohibiting its use cannot be justified since it is considered as the fourth most grown cash crop in America. The costs do very little to curb its trade and use within the economy. The resulting black market leads to a lot of revenue wasted from its prohibition since the black market is tax free. The traders and other people involved with the drug can easily evade the law and thus is transactions are still high. It can therefore be recommended that the government legalizes the use of marijuana and save the wasted resources in prohibition to leap the economic benefits, (Timothy, p74).

Work cited

David Lee. Analysis of Marijuana Policy. Overview of cost on law enforcement.Macgraw hill publishers, 2007, p26-39.

Mark Kleiman. Marijuana Legalization: The Time Is Now. Sage Publications, 2004, p15-48.

Randall, Blanchard. Medical use of marijuana policy and regulatory issues. Greenwood Press, 2001, p45-67.

Robert Kelleher. U.S Marijuana Laws and facts on cost effectiveness. Pfeiffer Publishers, 2001, p12-27.

Roy Jonassen. Positive and negative effects of marijuana. Sharpe Publishers, 2005, p33-46.

Rubin, Vera D. Cannabis and Culture. Prentice hall, 2006, p115-210.

Timothy Hampton. The Economic Benefits of the Legalizing use of Marijuana. Oxford university press, 2002, p56-74.

According to the opinion article posted by the Editorial Board of the Washington Post newspaper, the rush to legalize the use of marijuana should be rejected by Washington D.C voters. The board notes that handling of small amounts of drug was decriminalized recently and therefore, it is not logical to legalize the drug too soon. Voters should be given adequate time to ponder over the raging debate and be allowed to have their own independent input without being persuaded by politicians.

Although the effects of marijuana may be worse than that of alcohol, the board observes that the drug is still harmful. The District should take enough time before proposing for legalization. Better still, it should learn from other states that have already implemented the legalization process.

The board asserts that outright legalization of marijuana may not be the best option at a time when there are other avenues to control the trade and consumption of harmful drug. The American Medical Association (AMA) has always been against legalization. A statement quoted by the board from AMA notes that cannabis is a dangerous drug and as such is a public health concern. (D.C. voters should reject, 2014, par. 4).

It is indeed true that marijuana is among the harmful drugs that should not be allowed to penetrate into society. From the above opinion piece by the Washington Post Editorial Board, it is evident that marijuana debate has dominated headlines for a long time. However, should we trust politicians and pro-legalization sympathizers to assess the negative effects of marijuana? The American Medical Association comprises of professionals who have analyzed the effects of the drug and generated profound findings.

Needles to say, there are sufficient research-based empirical studies that have linked marijuana consumption with memory loss. Malivert and Hall (2013) are emphatic that marijuana smoke contains a lot of cancer-causing substance compared to tobacco. A single cannabis joint has an equal effect to five cigarette sticks.

The arguments made by the editorial team are not quite convincing even though marijuana remains a harmful substance. The board should have included a number of quantitative studies that have proved the negative effects of cannabis sativa. Some statistical data is necessary in such a hotly debated issue in order to convince the audience. In addition, the editorial board has not clarified how marijuana use led to impaired driving. There might be other causes of poor vision apart from marijuana.

References

D.C. voters should reject. 2014.

Malivert, R., & Hall, J. C. (2013). The effect of medical marijuana laws on extralegal marijuana prices. Atlantic Economic Journal, 41(4), 455-456.

For the last four decades, the debate about legalization of marijuana has attracted myriad controversies (Scorza 32). Intransigent proponents of permissive marijuana policies support the notion that individuals should be allowed access to restricted amounts of marijuana for personal use. In addition, they criticize the numerous criminal sanctions associated with marijuana possession and use citing that, such penalties are excessively harsh and uncalled for (33). In an attempt to amend the ugly picture surrounding the issue of marijuana legalization, Lancet editors echoed that cannabis per se is not a hazard to society, but driving it further underground may well be (Joffe &Yancy 632). Similarly, advocates for legalization also argue that mortality, morbidity, and economic costs associated with other legalized stimulants such as alcohol and cigarettes use in the United States surpass the harmful effects of marijuana use (Scorza 34). On the other hand, opponents against liberalization of marijuana counter that marijuana is not a munificent drug and that its use can attract various problems to an individual (Yacoubian 24). Furthermore, opponents support their proposition based on the new psychopharmacological information that marijuana exhibit various features associated with other illicit drugs (25). Interestingly, opponents contend that legalization of marijuana for personal use would escalate its usage, thus bringing unforeseeable health, economic and social costs (MacCoun1899). Against this backdrop, this essay will support the notion that legalization of marijuana is likely to increase its usage among teenagers in the United States.

Noticeably, the debate regarding legalization controversy surrounding marijuana use is not entirely a United States problem. In Australia, marijuana usage has been legalized discriminatorily in some regions (Damrongplasit & Cheng 636). On the same note, this debate has also been heightened in other countries such as Canada, Switzerland and other European countries as law makers reconsider their approach towards the legalization of marijuana (Dirk et al. 644). Interestingly, legalization of marijuana in Netherlands operates under a complex law system that permits personal use, but prohibits possession (645). On this note, in an attempt to expose the controversial issues concerning the link between legalization and increased/decreased usage, it is imperative to explore how the issue has been handled in the international arena.

Based on this brief evaluation of prior literature, no country across the world is yet to enact laws to legalize the sale, possession, advertising and usage of marijuana exclusively. This situation implies that, studies on the effects of legalization marijuana use among the youth are also limited.

To begin with, Damrongplasit and Cheng analyzed an annual survey that was carried out across various states between 1970 and 1980. The results of this survey, which was carried out among high school students concluded that, legalization debate about marijuana did not influence students attitudes towards use and possession of marijuana (631). Contrastingly, MacCoun analyzed data following a latter survey conducted between 1992 and 1994, and established that youths living in decriminalized states are significantly more likely to report currently using marijuana and may consume more frequently  (1899). Consequently, these above disparities can be interpreted based on several possible situations.

To begin with, although Damrongplasit and Cheng survey findings failed to establish any effect of legalization on use, the survey established that the states which had relaxed their laws experienced increased use of marijuana compared to the states whose laws remained intact (631). However, the results of this survey were quite confusing because the various states recorded a similar rate of increase in spite of whether the laws were favored usage or not. Nonetheless, the higher baseline increase in marijuana use could be a reflection of prior tolerance against marijuana use prior to the official legalization. However, it is imperative to note that, Damrongplasit and Cheng findings cannot be generalized across the board because it would be difficult to measure whether a similar effect would be observed if the survey was conducted among out of school teenagers, who have been found to have a higher rate of drug use (Trevino & Richard 93).

Additionally, the differing findings between Damrongplasit and Cheng and MacCoun surveys can be explained using a recent survey by Yacoubian on how marijuana legalization laws are enforced in the United States (pp. 17-34). According to Yacoubian, although some states portray a lax approach towards marijuana use, these laws are just in books, but different in application, wherein first time offenders are treated as criminals (22). On the contrary, the states whose laws appear tight-lipped against marijuana use perceive first time offences of marijuana possession as noncriminal (23). Furthermore, Yacoubian research established that youths originating from the states that treated first time possession of marijuana as noncriminal reported increased usage of the drug in the past month (24).

As aforementioned, several territories in Australia have taken a bold step towards liberalization of marijuana. On the same note, several comparative studies across the various territories have established no significant differences in use between the territories that legalized marijuana usage and those that place heavy penalties on the same (Scorza 34).

Correspondingly, the complex system of marijuana legalization in Netherlands has been studied diversely as researchers try to establish the effects of such a move on its use. MacCoun underscores that drug policies are very complex to understand, but the fact remains that Deutschland has one of the most lax legal system on drug use (1899). However, the law is quite controversial because in as far as use of illegal drugs is not regarded as a criminal offense per se; possession of the case attracts legal punishment. Interestingly, dealing in drugs is also considered a felony, thus it becomes difficult to understand how users access the drugs (MacCoun 1899). In addition, the law also prohibits advertising practices (1900).

Following the decriminalization approach towards marijuana use in Deutschland, drug use increased consistently and substantially between 1984 and 1996, while other countries portrayed a decreasing or stabilized outlook on marijuana use (Joffe &Yancy 632). A study conducted among youth between 18 and 20years reported that marijuana use increased from 15 to 44% among second users, whilst new users ranged between 8.5% and 18.5% (Yacoubian 24). During this time, marijuana use among adolescents in the United States recorded a steady decline between 1979 and 1992 due to strict legal policies. Noticeably, a similar trend was observed in Norway where marijuana use portrayed steadiness during the same period. Contrastingly, countries such as Stockholm, Hamburg, Denmark, and Catalunya (Spain), that have similar prohibition laws to Norway recorded steadiness or decline during this period (25). However, it is difficult to establish whether the increased use among Dutch youth was attributable to the changes in drug policies. This is because the United States and Norway (Oslo) started to experience escalating marijuana use among the youth between 1992 and 1996 even though the two countries retained harsh drug polices (Joffe &Yancy 632). As a matter of fact, a comparative survey in 1999 exposed contrasting results that indicated marijuana usage among 10 graders in the United States was actually higher (44%) than what was reported in the Netherlands (28%) (Dirk et al.632). These controversies indicate that, the topic on the effect of legalization on marijuana use is quite elusive, and the controversies become deep-rooted due to lack of exclusive case studies.

At this juncture, it is imperative to mention that this study on whether legalization of marijuana increases, decreases use among teenagers is not in anyway proposing that adolescents should be allowed to use marijuana. Apparently, the debate on whether to legalize or not to legalize marijuana use does not call for free use among underage individuals, but a change in marijuana policies would also attract some significant impact on teenagers. For instance, current U.S. polices prohibits alcohol sale and use to persons below 21 years, and tobacco products sale and use to persons below 18 years. However, in spite of these restrictive policies, research has shown the above drugs are widely abused by teenagers (Dirk et al. 636). Consequently, a survey in 2003 among 12^th graders reported that over 47.5% and 24.4% confessed to have abused alcohol and smoked cigarettes respectively within a period of 30 days (Damrongplasit & Cheng 641).

Obviously, legalizing marijuana could result to increased promotional campaigns in the media. Similarly, to what has been previously witnessed in alcohol and cigarette advertisements, some spill over effects would eventually be directed at teenagers (Scorza 39). According to Scorza , control measures to prevent alcohol and cigarette advertisements that contained youthful appeal have been extremely difficult to implement, and there is no proof that the measures would be effective with legalization of marijuana (40). Since the initiation of tobacco advertisement regulation measures, there has been an ensuing battle between marketers and law enforcers on whether the various adverts are directed to youthful population in disguises (41). Although the tobacco regulations in United States prohibit youth oriented advertisements, a recent survey by Dirk et al.indicated otherwise. The latter author underscores that despite the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement being put in place, cigarette advertisements in youth-oriented periodicals increased by $ 54 million (634). On the same note, Mack and Joy study revealed that expenditures for youth-oriented cigarettes brands in various periodicals have escalated at unprecedented levels between 1995 and 2000 (112). Noticeably, the advertised brands were found to be common among over 5% of 8th, 10^th and 12^th grades adolescents in 1998 (Trevino & Richard 106). In addition, adult-oriented cigarette brands advertisements also found their way into these youth orientated periodicals (107).

Similarly, Yacoubian cited a recent case study in Massachusetts wherein a Supreme Court judge enacted regulations that banned erection of cigarette advertisement posters within a radius of 1000 feet from a school or a children playground (24). In this ruling, Justice Sandra Day OConnor wrote that

The states interest in preventing underage tobacco use is substantial and even compelling, but it is no less true that the sale and use of tobacco by adults is a legal activity,&..tobacco retailers and manufacturers have an interest in conveying truthful information about their products to adults, and adults have a corresponding interest in receiving truthful information about tobacco products(Yacoubian 24). Presumably, similar advertisements restrictions are likely to be enacted for marijuana, but the big question remains whether these control measures would be effective based on the fact that, such enactments have been ineffective in controlling alcohol and cigarette advertisements, which are packaged for young audience.

The advertisements quagmire and the effectiveness of control measures to restrict the popularity of youth orientated adverts have also been witnessed in the alcohol industry. According to Scorza, alcohol advertisements have often portrayed drinking as sexy, fun, popular and idea, whereby those who do not drink are portrayed as social misfits (42). In addition, the various advertisements portray alcohol as the missing link that brings liveliness to social settings (Damrongplasit & Cheng 629). Consequently, recent surveys indicate that alcohol is a common feature in teenagers parties (Dirk et al. 632). This implies that adult orientated alcohol advertisements also appeal to youth audience and subsequently increases usage. On the same note, legalization of marijuana is likely to follow in the same footsteps because distributors would want to appeal to the youthful audience to increase sales. In such a situation, it is obvious that legalization of marijuana would increase its use among teenagers due to the negative effects of marijuana advertisements.

According to Dirk et al. the United States government via the Synar Amendment prohibits sale of tobacco and its related products to minor persons under the age of 18 years (638). Devastatingly, both the federal and states government have been unable to enforce this Amendment effectively (639). The author underscores that, the escalating cases of cigarettes smoking among teenagers is associated with poor enforcement of laws that prohibit cigarette sale to minor. On the same note, legalization of marijuana would call for additional law to prohibit sale of marijuana to minors. However, it is obvious that the current legal system is overwhelmed with cigarette regulations, thus extra marijuana regulations would end up burdening the system even further.

The notion on whether legalization of marijuana for adults would alter teenagers perception about the drug is quite difficult to determine. However, studies have exposed that prevalence of marijuana use among teenagers is directly related to the perceived risks associated with the drug (Dirk et al. 632). According to Mack and Joy, legal sanctions may trigger the commencement of drug use during the initial stages (101). However, as the individuals gets used to these sanctions, usage may decrease substantially. Nonetheless, the impact of initial legal sanctions on drug use might be irreversible among teenagers. This is due to the fact that age has been attributed as a risk factor that rekindles drug use in future (Mack & Joy 101).

On the same note, legalization of marijuana would ease access to the drug thus increasing the risks of use among teenagers. Research on cigarette and alcohol use among adolescents indicates that availability increases usage (Scorza 32). If marijuana if readily available, even the sale prohibit laws are not likely to stop marijuana use among teenager because crafty traders will definitely sell the drug to minors (33). Noticeably, marijuana is a cheaply produced drug, thus legalization would bring its prices below the current rates (Dirk et al. 632). A survey by Mack and Joy in the United States and Trevino and Richard in Australia revealed that a decrease in the price of marijuana led to increased prevalence levels of marijuana use among adolescents (101 & 108 respectively).

On the same note, legalization of marijuana would increase its use among parents and subsequently increase use among teenagers (Dirk et al. 632). Apparently, although a substantial number of parents may be abusing marijuana, they might be doing so in secret. However, legalization would encourage use of marijuana at homes. Researches indicate that ease of access of illicit substances at household level increase the risk of use among younger and older adolescent substantially (Dirk et al. 632). Currently, some parents may not be using marijuana, not because they perceive it as awful, but because of criminal sanctions associated with illegal drug use and possession (633). However, following the relaxation of legal sanctions associated with marijuana use, some of them may decide to start using marijuana. By so doing, such parents would be exposing their children to the illicit drug, thus increasing the risk of marijuana use by these children. According to Damrongplasit and Cheng, parental use of marijuana was associated with increasing use among adolescents (638). This implies that legalization of marijuana will increase use among parents and subsequently lead to increased use among adolescents.

In an attempt to call attention to their advocacy, some proponents of legalization of marijuana have often cited that marijuana use is safer than alcohol use. These proponents argue that if following legalization of marijuana adolescent who abuse alcohol switched to marijuana, the effects would be less harmful (Mack & Joy 101). However, recent economic research revealed that the two substances were not substitutes, but complements, thus the substitution theory does not substantiate the legalization of marijuana. As a matter of fact, an increase in marijuana use would also increase alcohol use among adolescents (Mack & Joy 101).

In a nutshell it is evident that legalizing marijuana would increase its use among teenagers in the United States. Several studies that exposed the Dutch experience between 1984 and 1992 following legalization of marijuana have been explored explicitly in this essay. Similarly, recent studies pertaining to the relationship between liberated availability of marijuana and its use among American adolescents have positively indicated that legalization increases marijuana use among these individuals. However, bearing in mind that no country is yet to exercise outright legalization of marijuana, the potential effects of legalization of marijuana on the American teenager can be difficult to hypothesize. However, comparative international surveys across countries where legalization of marijuana have been enacted either to a greater or lesser extent have revealed contrasting results, that making it impossible to generalize this case studies to the United States dilemma.

Interestingly, several studies have proposed that, legalization of marijuana increases its exposure among adolescents, and that this exposure could make these teenagers to downplay the risks associated with marijuana use. Citing cigarette and alcohol legislations laws, researchers concur that legalization of adult oriented drugs has negative effects on minors. The fact that legalization of cigarette and alcohol has increased their use among underage individuals depict that marijuana legalization would assume a similar slope. In addition, advertising strategies for marijuana are likely to assume the same model adopted by cigarette and alcohol advertisers where they package their adverts with youthful appeal to attract underage users to their brands. The mind-boggling question one can ask here is that, if current advertising control measures have been unable to regulate advertisement targeting youthful audience, why should we assume that they will be effective when marijuana is legalized. Furthermore, the fact that retailing of cigarettes and alcohol to teenagers have sustained unperturbed by the various laws that prohibit this practice is a clear indicator that additional laws to prohibit marijuana sale among underage users would also not be effectual. To recap it all, it is evident that legalization of marijuana would increase its use among teenagers in the United States.

Works Cited

Damrongplasit, Kannika & Hsiao Cheng. Decriminalization Policy and Marijuana Smoking Prevalence: A Look at the Literature. Singapore Economic Review 54.4 (2009): 621-644.

Dirk J. Korf, et al. Access To Licensed Cannabis Supply And The Separation Of Markets Policy In The Netherlands. Journal of Drug Issues 39.3 (2009): 627- 651.

Joffe, Alain & Samuel Yancy. Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact On Youth. Pediatrics 113.6 (2004): 632-638.

MacCoun, Robert J. What Can We Learn From The Dutch Cannabis Coffeeshop System?.Addiction 106.11 (2011): 1899-1910.

Mack, Alison & Joy, Janet E. Marijuana as medicine? The science beyond the controversy. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press, 2001. Print.

Scorza, Thomas J. Legalizing Drugs Is Not The Answer. Human Rights 17.2 (1990): 24-56.

Trevino, Robert A & Richard, Alan. Attitudes towards drug legalization among drug users. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 28.1 (2002):91-108.

Yacoubian, George S. Assessing the Relationship between Marijuana Availability and Marijuana Use: A Legal and Sociological Comparison between the United States and the Netherlands. Journal of Alcohol & Drug Education 51.4 (2007): 17- 34.