|
|
Debate:Marijuana, Legalization of
From Debatepedia
[  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Should Marijuana be legalized?
|
YOU CAN BECOME AN EDITOR OF THIS PAGE. DEBATEPEDIA IS A WIKI THAT ANYONE CAN EDIT! WHAT'S A WIKI? GETTING STARTED.
Editing tasks you can help with:
- This debate needs quotations from the pro/con resources section (bottom) to be made into supporting quotations for specific arguments in this debate article and on argument pages. This entails simply reading these pro and con articles and drawing quotations from them.
- There are many quotations on argument pages that should be presented on this page in place of the argument summaries that are already provided.
- You can add new tasks here, cross out completed ones, and talk more extensively about work on this article on this article's talk page.
[ ] Background and Context of Debate:
The debate regarding the legalisation of drugs, particularly that of soft drugs like cannabis (or marijuana) is capable of being characterised as one which pits the concept of freedom of the individual against the concept of a paternalistic State. Advocates of legalisation argue, amongst other things, that cannabis is not only less harmful than legal substances like alcohol and tobacco, but as a matter of fact has been proven to possess certain medicinal properties. In stark contrast, those opposed to legalisation argue that the legalisation of cannabis will act as a precursor to increased addiction to hard drugs, and will necessarily lead to an increase in the crime rate itself.
Historical Events and Legislation
In 1937, the Marijuana (Marihuana) Tax Act was introduced by Henry Anslinger and passed, levying taxes on anyone who was associated with cannabis, hemp, or marijuana. These types of association include possession, use, sale, and many other acts which would be considered illegal today. In addition to the taxes provisioned by the bill, penal codes for the procedural use and possession of marijuana were also outlined - violators could face five years in prison in up to a $2,000 fine. In 1951, an act that superseded the Marijuana Tax Act was passed criminalizing the possession and use of cannabis, hemp, and/or marijuana. In 1969, in the case of Leary v. United States, the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was overturned on the grounds of the 5th Amendment because those seeking a tax stamp would have to incriminate themsleves. In 1970, Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act listing cannabis as a Schedule I drug. Despite the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, many states and local cities began to decriminalize marijuana citing possession/use/sale/etc. as low priority offenses. Although many attempts have been made to reschedule cannabis off Schedule I, the Supreme Court ruled in a 2005 decision in the case of United States v. Raich, the federal government has jurisdiction over the legal status of marijuana.
|
[ ] [  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Individual liberty: Should individuals be at liberty to use marijuana?
|
[  ] [ ] Yes
I completely agree with what was said:
People should be at liberty to treat their bodies how they want to. Indeed, people are allowed to eat and drink to their detriment and even death, so why shouldn't they be able to harm themselves with marijuana use? This is, of course, assuming that their use does not harm anyone else. This means, as with substances such as alcohol or cigarettes, that regulations be put in place to ensure that one individuals consumption of marijuana does not violate the liberties of another citizen. If this is achievable with alcohol and cigarettes, it seems achievable with marijuana.
Here are some example regulations I can think of off the top of my head.
1) You can not be high in public. Just as the regulation of not being drunk in public.
2) You can not drive while high,
3) You can not have or use Marijuana on school property, or any where there is a sign posted.
I can not think of any more. Please, if anyone can think of more post them.
- People should be free to use marijuana as long as it harms no one else People should be at liberty to treat their bodies how they want to. Indeed, people are allowed to eat and drink to their detriment and even death, so why shouldn't they be able to harm themselves with marijuana use? This is, of course, assuming that their use does not harm anyone else. This means, as with substances such as alcohol or cigarrettes, that regulations be put in place to ensure that one individual's consumption of marijuana does not violate the liberties of another citizen. If this is achievable with alcohol and cigarettes, it seems achievable with marijuana.
- Marijuana's social costs should not be arbitrarily discriminated against Marijuana may indeed have indirect social costs, such as increased healthcare costs, increased risks on the road, and others. But, illegalizing marijuana on this basis risks being seen as arbitrary discrimination against marijuana. Wouldn't you also have to illegalize alcohol, tobacco, and fast food on a similar basis. Certainly, the social costs and risks of these substances can be argued as equivalent to the risks of marijuana consumption. Illegalizing marijuana on the basis of its social costs, therefore, opens the law to accusations of being arbitrary, discriminatory, and of double standards. This is not good for the law and the integrity of the social contract.
- Marijuana is only unhealthy or risky when abused The problem with illegalizing marijuana is that it lumps the most moderate of uses of marijuana in with the worst of abuses. Just like with alcohol, there are scales of use that fall within responsible to irresponsible to abusive categories. The responsible use of marijuana might involve the recreational use of the drug a couple of times a year and in very small doses, such as, a single toke. Does it make sense for such innocuous levels of consumption to be illegal? No. And, yet, in states where marijuana is illegal, such levels of consumption are illegal. Instead of this system, marijuana should be legally regulated like alcohol on the basis of abuse in circumstances where it has the potential to threaten other citizens, such as before driving or operating machinery.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- The State is justified in protecting individuals from themselves Even if marijuana's effects were isolated to the individual, there is room for the state to protect individuals from harming themselves. This is why it is illegal to commit suicide or to, in some places, not wear a seat belt. If marijuana's effects are seen as clearly harmful, the state can justly protect its citizens from it.
- Some are "pressured" into marijuana consumption without a "choice" The notion that individuals should be free to make the choice to consume marijuana is predicated on the notion that they are fully informed of the costs and are in a position of detached judgement. The problem with this assumption is that many individuals grow up in, for instance, ghettos where marijuana is widespread, social pressure to consume is high, and few information is available regarding the costs. In addition, an individual may be illiterate or lack sufficient recourse to uncovering the costs. Is it fair to that individual to expect that they can make a sound judgement? No. The guidance of marijuana's "illegal" status is an important barrier and red flag to such individuals.
- Marijuana use directly threatens other's liberties Various risks to other citizens are greatly enhanced by marijuana use. Because marijuana impairs judgement and motor skills in various ways, people on a high who attempt to drive or operate heavy machinery risk other people's lives or health. Impaired judgement from marijuana use also has the potential to lead to violent encounters.
- Marijuana's harm to individuals spill over onto communities and society To argue that individual consumption of marijuana entails only individual consequences is to argue that individuals exist in something of a vacuum. The reality is that citizens within society are highly interconnected and interdependent. If marijuana use leads to the degradation of an individual in various ways, this creates stresses on other individuals who depend on that individual. For example, an individual may be unable to function properly in their job due to their marijuana use, and this may damage the business they are involved with. This damage, in extreme circumstances, could lead to layoffs of other workers or possibly even the disintegration of a business. Another frequent example is the degradation of a family due to marijuana use, and the subsequent degradation of a church and community. To significant degrees, these social damages can be seen as violations of the liberties of other individuals to the extent that liberties can be defined as the opportunity for individuals to seek fulfillment and happiness.
- Marijuana's public health costs violate tax-payer liberties
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [  ] Health: Is marijuana fairly harmless health-wise or even spiritually beneficial?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Marijuana is no more harmful than tobacco and alcohol Although cannabis does indeed have some harmful effects, it is no more harmful than legal substances like alcohol and tobacco. As a matter of fact, research by the British Medical Association shows that nicotine is far more addictive than cannabis. Furthermore, the consumption of alcohol and the smoking of cigarettes cause more deaths per year than does the use of cannabis (e.g. through lung cancer, stomach ulcers, accidents caused by drink driving etc.). The legalisation of cannabis will remove an anomaly in the law whereby substances that are more dangerous than cannabis are legal whilst the possession and use of cannabis remains unlawful.
- Marijuana can have a beneficial mind-altering effect if used right Marijuana use can alter one's perception of reality or consciousness. The alteration need not be thought of as spiritual or religious to be respected for what it is; a fresh look on a reality that we are programed as humans to perceive only in a particular manner. Marijuana can help humans perceive that complex reality from simply a different perspective, which can benefit our appreciation for that reality and our unique and limited perceptions of it. With this more intelligent approach to marijuana consumption, it is easy to argue that mental, perceptual, and societal benefits exist.
- Weighing marijuana's "mind-expansion" against its costs is subjective Who can say that marijuana use is "worth it" or "not worth it"? Many individuals strongly believe that marijuana use has a "mind expanding" effect that makes the health costs worth it. Other disagree. But can the government or anyone conclude for us all that "it's not worth it"? No. With so much subjectiveness involved, marijuana should not be illegal.
- Legalization would change drug consumption from a criminal to a health issue The biggest issue with marijuana relates to the health problems it creates, with lung problems, "addiction", short-term memory loss, energy loss, and even the risk of schizophrenia. The social costs are little different than those with alcohol or cigarettes. Therefore, it should be treaty as a health issue, rather than a crime issue.
- Marijuana is not addictive There is no evidence that marijuana physically addictive. While it may be psychologically addictive, in the sense that people like it and want to do it again, this is little different than alcohol. But, certainly, cigarettes are more addictive than marijuana. And, since cigarettes are physically addictive and yet legal, should addictiveness really be a barometer for a substance's illegality? No.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Marijuana is worse for individuals and society than alcohol Both alcohol and marijuana impair judgement. And, both have can have damaging health effects on internal organs and cause death if over-consumed. Yet, the distinguishing feature of marijuana is that it has greater long-term effects on memory, cognition, and motivations. Marijuana is more the drug of "losers in life" than alcohol. If one primary objective in society is to produce as many succesfull, "winners" as possible, alcohol is less costly to this objective than marijuana. Also, much less is known about he health effects of marijuana than of alcohol; making caution toward legalizing marijuana more appropriate. It is, therefore, fitting that marijuana be illegal while alcohol be legal.
- Marijuana is worse for individuals and society than tobacco Both cigarettes and marijuana do damage to the lungs. But, marijuana smoke is much more potent, and can do much more damage. Marijuana use reduces hormone levels and sperm count unlike cigarettes. And, marijuana impairs judgement, does long term damage to the mind, and can cause psychosis. Cigarrettes have none of these mental costs. In addition, the health effects of tobacco are much better documented than those of marijuana. Therefore, it is appropriate that cigarrettes be legal while marijuana be illegal.
- Marijuana is addictive There are many studies that demonstrate a "dependency" relationship evolving between individuals and marijuana.
- Marijuana use causes apoptosis or programmed cell death Unlike alcohol and tobacco, cannabis has a hallucinatory effect on the mind. This is inherently dangerous in itself. Furthermore, just like other drugs, there are many individuals addicted to cannabis who will resort to crime in order to fund their addiction.[citation needed] The legalization of cannabis will lead to the drug becoming more readily available, which in turn will mean that many more people will gain access to it. This will subsequently lead to an increase in the crime rate. Initial statistics from the Netherlands shows that the decriminalization and eventual legalization of cannabis did led to an increase in crime in Dutch society[citation needed].
- Uncertainty of marijuana's health effects makes illegality prudent There certainly remains uncertainty and debate about marijuana's health effects. This makes it prudent to error on the side of caution and maintain illegality in states where this is the status quo. What if, for example, a state decided to legalize marijuana, to only discover five years later that marijuana has a dramatically more negative impact on human cognition than previously thought, or that it substantially increased the risks of psychosis? This would be politically and socially damaging. More scientific conclusions should be reached before decisive action is taken in any direction.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Social: Would legalization entail heavy societal costs?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Illegalized marijuana forces consumers to interact with criminal underground Presently, cannabis is sold by dealers who have connections with the underworld. The legalization of cannabis will help facilitate the sale of the drug in establishments like Amsterdam’s "coffee houses". This will shift the sale of cannabis away from the criminal underworld. The severance of this ‘criminal link’ will ensure that the users of the drug no longer need to come into contact with organized crime.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Marijuana is the drug for life's losers If we want to produce a better society, there is some room for "big brother" regulations to prevent citizens from doing harm to themselves. This is particularly appropriate in the context of some individuals not having a "choice" in the matter, in the sense that they grow up in an environment that exposes them to marijuana and in which they don't have any knowledge of marijuana's costs.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Consumption levels: Will legalization reduce the consumption of marijuana?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Legalization of drugs will remove the rebellious glamor of it Many psychological studies indicate that the attractiveness of a thing is often increased when it is scarce or when it is forbidden. This may have to do with a desire to be unique or to stand out. Some associate it with a frequently youthful desire to be rebellious. Whatever the cause, there is substantial reason to believe that the illegality of marijuana actually increases the appeal of it, and subsequently increases its consumption.
- The Netherlands has lower Marijuana consumption rates than the United States. The Netherlands, which has permitted the possession and retail sale of marijuana since 1976, actually ranks lower than the United States in the percentage of people who have ever used marijuana in every age category, has a higher age of initiation among those that do try marijuana, and fewer adolescents in the Netherlands than in the United States use other illegal drugs.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- The legalization of marijuana will increase consumption Legalization of marijuana will make the drug more accessible, affordable, and acceptable, making its increased consumption a near certainty. Empirical evidence with countries that have moved to legalization appears to flush this theory out.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Gateway drug: Is Marijuana not a gateway drug?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- There is little evidence that Marijuana is a gateway drug If marijuana was a gateway drug, you would expect to see high numbers of marijuana consumers also being, for instance, cocaine users. But, this correlation does not really exist. In America, for every roughly one hundred marijuana user, there is only one cocaine user. In addition, it is nearly impossible to establish a direct causal link between an individual's marijuana consumption and their subsequent "hard" drug consumption. It is completely possible, for instance, that individuals who choose to partake in marijuana consumption are inherently more risk-taking. Therefore, their choice to try cocaine could be completely causally dissociated from their initial consumption of marijuana.
- Marijuana may be a "gateway drug" because it's in the drug blackmarket Marijuana is often criticized as being a gateway drug to harder drugs, and this is used as a justification for its illegality. Irrespective of a lack of evidence in this regard, there is reason to believe that marijuana's illegality itself could be the cause of Marijuana being a gateway drug. The illegality of marijuana causes its sale, purchase, and consumption to occur in the blackmarket, where the sale, purchase, and consumption of all other hard drugs occur. This means that marijuana's blackmarket existence causes consumers of it to be exposed to a network of other, harder blackmarket drugs, which subsequently increases the likelihood that these consumers will be swayed to try harder drugs. If marijuana was legalized, the sale, purchase, and consumption of marijuana would not take place within these blackmarket, and therefore the link to harder drugs would be broken.
- Alcohol is more of a gateway drug than marijuana.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Marijuana is a gateway drug Marijuana is considered a "soft" drug, as compared with "harder" drugs such as cocaine, heroine, and crystal meth. This is because it is less addictive and generally considered less harmful than these other drugs. But, the problem is that, as a "soft" drug, marijuana acts as a stepping stone or "gateway" to "harder" drugs. Having tried marijuana and having been indoctrinated into the world of "mind-altering" drugs, people are much more likely to then try harder drugs. The illegality of marijuana creates a barrier before this "gateway".
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Judicial overload: Would the legalization of marijuana relieve strained courts?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Far too many people are imprisoned for the possession of marijuana In America, around 800,000 people are arrested on marijuana related charges each year. This creates a massive strain on court systems and on prisons. The consequences of these strains are far-reaching, including such problems as increased rates of plea bargaining.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Marijuana consumers are typically not convicted of a crime While some argue that marijuana prohibition overburdens courts with marijuana possession cases, the reality is that the many arrests that occur each year for marijuana possession do not actually lead to charges and court cases. Therefore, marijuana possession laws are not the judicial burden that legalization advocates often make them out to be.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Crime: Would legalization help reduce crime?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Legalizing marijuana will decrease crime by ending criminality of drugs Smoking marijana is not forbidden in the Netherlands. But, it is forbidden to grow marijuana,and to buy marijuana in great quantities. And there is the cause of crime. If you want to make consumption of marijuana legal, then producing, growing and selling marijuana ought to be legal too. Now producers of marijuana are criminals. It is the law, in this case, that makes the crime.
- Rise of criminal acts associated with Marijuana addiction is directly related to a prohibition. The main reasons is because the use is prohibited, then the price is high and is hard to obtain, that conduct to a criminal acts to obtain the drug.
|
[ ] [ ] No
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Economics: Would the legalization of marijuana be economical?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Increased legal marijuana consumption will decrease economic productivity If marijuana consumption can be concluded as leading to decreased cognition, short-term member, and motivation, and if legalization can concluded as likely to raise consumption, than the result of legalization will be to marginally decrease productivity in the market place.
- Legal marijuana's social costs will negate new tax revenues The degradation of family and community relations has major economic costs. These are important support networks. If marijuana disrupts them even marginally, the government becomes obliged to support those who's social networks and communities have weakened due to marijuana use.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Prohibition feasibility: Is the prohibition of marijuana infeasible?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
|
[ ] [ ] No
It is not inconceivable that the same criminal elements who now sell cannabis will, when the drug is legalised, diversify its business and set up "coffee houses" themselves. In effect this will do nothing to separate the sale of cannabis from the criminal underworld. Conversely, it will give them a legitimate base from which to operate their activities.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Legal regulation: Would legal regulation of marijuana be superior to a ban?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
|
[ ] [ ] No
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Race: Is prohibition enforcement racially biased?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
|
[ ] [ ] No
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Potency: Is it wrong to think marijuana is growing in potency and does it matter?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
|
[ ] [ ] No
|
|
