|
ARGUMENTS FOR AND
AGAINST THE LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA
Heard
of the "War on Drugs"?
It
refers to governmental programs intended to suppress the consumption of
certain recreational drugs. First used by US President, Richard Nixon,
in 1972 to describe US’s programs, equivalent terms are now used in
many countries.
The
War on Drugs utilizes several techniques to achieve its goal of
eliminating recreational drug use:
specialized law enforcement agencies, officers and techniques
information campaigns to educate the public on the dangers of
recreational drug use
critics often cite these campaigns as a primary reason to end the War on
Drugs; they claim the campaigns are frequently misleading or outright
lying
streamlined enforcement and evidence-gathering procedures
Marijuana is a drug included in the “war”. Drugs deemed socially,
religiously, medically or politically unfit for recreational use are
frequently banned. The legal position of marijuana alters throughout the
world, reflecting how Governments wage their “war”. From a blanket
prohibition suppressing all use, to permitting certain amounts for
personal use, the legalization of marijuana fights different fights in
different countries. However arguments FOR and AGAINST the
legalization of marijuana remain the same.
The Roots of Marijuana Law in the US
The Marijuana Tax Act was introduced in 1937. It required sellers to
obtain a license. Blanket prohibition was not the intention. Harry
Anslinger (Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner) testified in hearings on
the subject that the hemp plant needed to be banned because it had a
violent "effect on the degenerate races." This specifically
referred to Mexican immigrants who had entered the country, seeking jobs
during the Great Depression.
The
law passed quickly and with little debate. The American Medical
Association (AMA) protested the law soon after, both on the grounds of
actual disagreement with the law and the supporter's lies on the
subject, claiming the AMA had vocalized support when, in fact, the
opposite was true.
There was some legal wrangling over the issue after it was passed. The
people who were allowed to issue the licenses did not do so, effectively
banning the drugs. The judicial system did not accept, at first, that
being arrested in possession of drugs was a tax violation because it
must have come from an unlicensed source (because there were no
licenses), thereby avoiding taxes. Thus, the federal government did have
the right to regulate the ingestion of drugs.
FOR:
Prohibition
must be weighed against the loss of personal freedom. Countries have a responsibility to respect individual
free will and the right of self-determination.
The
immorality of marijuana use can only be based on one set of moral
beliefs. For example, it is discriminatory to claim that Judeo-Christian
abstinence from intoxication is the correct set of moral beliefs.
The War
on Drugs serves the immediate interests of politicians. By taking a
"moral" stand against recreational drugs, or fighting the
evils caused by the illegal drug trade they increase their popularity
amongst constituents.
Legal
prohibition does not stop consumers from consuming drugs, it does not
stop trafficants from producing and selling it. The price of the final
product increases to abnormally high values because of the black market
status, which together with the powerful effects of drug addiction
causes users to commit crimes in order to fund their addiction.
Critics
of the War on Drugs advocate the partial or complete decriminalization
of illegal drugs, combined with a system of regulation, as happens with
alcohol and prescription drugs. By providing legal supplies of currently
illegal drugs the price will fall, leading to a collapse in the illegal
drug industry, and a reduction in crimes committed by both drug
suppliers and users. They also argue that the reduction in the price
will lead to little, if any, growth in drug addiction, due to the
inelasticity of demand. Some even state that in a strictly regulated
market, drug use may fall overall, by removing the marketing activities
of the illegal drug industry.
It is not
worthwhile for a law to forbid people from willingly exposing their own
bodies to harm by using drugs, any more than by overeating or
bungee-jumping. Obesity is a national epidemic, killing millions every
year, but the government has no right to regulate how much citizens eat.
Drug
users exercise free will when they chose to use drugs; a person has the
right to give up his or her own freedom. A Government does not have the
right to dictate them. No drug eliminates free will. It is possible to
quit using any drug. Many banned drugs are significantly less
deleterious to free will than legal alcohol or tobacco. Severe
physiological addiction has been demonstrated for tobacco (stronger than
cocaine), but no strong physiological addiction has been shown for
marijuana.
Legalize
marijuana and reduce health care costs by reducing the probability of overdoses
and accidental ingestion of an unintended drug through standardization
of drug purity by state-sponsored production and sale.
There is no clear and obvious third party harm. Such examples are
caused by related activities that can be illegal without blanket
prohibition. For example, driving while intoxicated is illegal, while
drinking alcohol without driving is not.
Harm
caused to children by their parents' excessive drug use is criminal
insofar as it constitutes child neglect; drug-specific laws are
unneeded.
If drugs
were legalized, the companies that manufacture and market them would be
sued, such as cigarette companies have been exposed to lawsuits.
Legalization of drugs would work to increase liability on producers
forcing health standards.
Legalization
would allow greater regulation. Cigarettes come with warnings. Alcoholic
beverages are clearly marked with the amount of alcohol. Currently legal
drugs contain a listing of all active and inactive ingredients. Illegal
drugs could be sold legally with ingredients lists, warnings and purity
levels clearly marked.
Recreational drug has no clear and obvious harmful effect on
anyone besides the user (who chooses to accept those risks). The War on
Drugs, on the other hand, places non-users' friends and loved ones in
jail. The War on Drugs does have clear and obvious harmful effects on
third parties.
Countries
who have experimented with legalization have had positive results.
AGAINST:
A State
cannot be involved with the distribution of substances considered
immoral by relevant lots of the population. A substance considered
unhealthy cannot be produced and distributed with the help of the state,
because the goal of the state is to protect citizens' health and not to
expose them to risk.
The easy
availability of drugs would create new consumers rather than rescuing
current ones.
Drugs are
addictive. They rob the user of free will. A drug user cannot make an
informed and rational decision to continue using drugs because the use
of the drug eliminates that user's ability to think logically. Nor can
they disseminate themselves from drug taking.
Drug use
is dangerous to persons besides the user, in the rise of health care
costs, violence associated with the use of drugs, neglect of children by
drug-addicted parents, and other third party effects.
The use
of soft drugs, such as marijuana, leads to the use of hard drugs (the
Gateway Theory).
Drug
dealers will sell to anyone, including children. Merchants who legally
sell alcohol and tobacco are not allowed to sell to children. Many high
school students report that it is easier to obtain illegal drugs than
alcohol and tobacco.
Legalizing drugs will
send a message to children that drug use is acceptable.
Sponsors
Legalize Cannabis - Sites for and against
marijuana.
Medical
Marijuana -
Find out the truth about medical
marijuana at Medical Marijuana Blog.
Vaporizer - Premium herbal vaporizers at
very low prices.
Hydroponic Marijuana - Grow unbelievable
buds, which means you need to smoke less for a
sensational stoned feeling.
Marijuana Tea - A great way to consume
your greens in a lovely drink. |
