Legalization, Decriminalization, And Recreational Use Of Cannabis - Research Paper Example

Legalization, Decriminalization, And Recreational Use Of Cannabis Recently, voters within the District of Columbia engaged in a pivotal vote on the recreational use of marijuana. Other states involved included Alaska, Colorado and Oregon. As opposed to conventional ballot initiatives on medical marijuana, the recent initiatives in these states were primarily concerned with the recreational use of marijuana. Technically, federal laws in the United States illegalize marijuana under the Substance Control Act of 1970. As a Schedule 1 drug, federal laws do not permit marijuana use for either medicinal or recreational uses. Fortunately, individual states have the autonomy to amend federal laws through popular votes. Amending marijuana laws requires that a state should obtain at least 60% of votes on one side of a debate. Recently in the nation’s capital, 69% of voters in Washington D.C approved recreational use of marijuana. In Colorado, 55.3% approved the recreational use of marijuana while 44.7% disapproved its use (Lindsey, 34). In this context, a sizable portion of voters approves the recreational proposition while the other portion disapproves the proposition. Admittedly, the recent wave of ballot initiatives concerning recreational use of marijuana is new. In the recent past, 23 states in the United States approved medical use of marijuana through ballot initiatives. Currently, these states are pushing towards recreational use of the drug through ballot initiatives. Apparently, voters in these states are divided on the issue of recreational use of the drug. In Colorado, numerous debates on recreational use of marijuana dominated social, political and economic environments prior to the voting dates. Some voters and state officials appeared publicly to strongly advocate for legalization of marijuana for recreational use. Contrarily, other voters and state officials expressed their concerns in opposing and criticizing the initiative’s proponents (Kirk, 01). After voters in the aforementioned states casted their votes, it is likely that other states may follow suit. Consequently, the issue of recreational use of marijuana has occupied the central platform on national debates today. Recently, the Colorado State senator appeared on print media admitting that the war on drugs at both the state and national level is not working. As a recommendation, the senator Shawn Mitchell asserted that legalizing the recreational use of marijuana will act as an effective approach in addressing the failing trend of war on drugs. In this regard, the proponent’s side of the debate highlights that legalizing recreational use of marijuana will help in the war on drugs initiatives. First, the proponents have reiterated that marijuana is not as harmful as the federal system claims (Sisal, 16). In fact, relevant health statistics shows that alcohol and cigarette use causes six times more health problems compared to marijuana. Technically, the number of persons using alcohol in the United States is infinitesimally higher compared to those using marijuana. Proponents of the debate asserts that since marijuana causes relatively limited problems compared to other legalized drugs like alcohol and tobacco, it is not realistic to continue illegalizing recreational use of this harmless substance, while at the same time approving use of harmful substances like alcohol. Therefore, tons of human, logistical and monetary resources spent annually in enforcing marijuana laws across the nation should be diverted to fighting other more harmful substances, thus enhancing positive outcomes of the war on drugs (Sadie and Lee, 49). Contrarily, opponents of the debate highlights that marijuana is relatively harmful and causes secondary problems. According to these opponents, legalizing recreational use of marijuana will act as a roadblock in the war on drugs. First, marijuana use by drivers will cause secondary problems like road fatalities, thus exerting more pressure on treating secondary effects of marijuana. In addition, legalization of marijuana acts as a green light to other harmful drugs. Currently, most Americans shy away from drugs because they are prohibited by law. Legalizing previously prohibited drugs like marijuana acts as an approval signal to substance abuse (Sadie and Lee, 52). Therefore, opponents of the debate are afraid that giving a nod to recreational use of marijuana will further compromise on the already failing war on drugs. In addition, proponents on the debate cite the economic aspect of increased taxes from legalization of marijuana use for recreational purposes. Proponents say that for illustrational purpose, Colorado is currently collecting taxes from legitimate sale of marijuana for medical and recreational use across the nation. In June 2014, Colorado collected $ 4,775,079 in form of sales taxes from marijuana retail stores (Rudolph, 30). In estimate, the federal system is losing approximately $3 billion annually as tax revenue associated with marijuana sales across the states. Sadly, drug cartels continue to expand their markets and reap sizable monetary benefits even in the presence of marijuana enforcement laws. Proponents of the debate are quick to highlight that the numbers of marijuana users across the nation are increasing significantly. Consequently, sales revenue from the drug is increasing correspondingly. As acknowledged earlier, marijuana use is relatively less harmful compared to alcohol use. Based on this premise of limited harmfulness, proponents say that it would be beneficial to legalize its use, and reap the economic benefits associated with the drug sale (Aaron and Peyton, 01). Continued illegalization ensures that state and federal systems continue to lose substantial tax revenue, while at the same time incurring sizable costs associated with failed war on marijuana use. In this case, proponents on the debate assert that the synergistic effect of tax collection coupled with limited use of resources on enforcement of marijuana laws will usher unprecedented economic benefits to the nation. Contrarily, opponents of the debate neutralize the economic aspects of marijuana legalization with eventual economic cost of legalizing the drug. According to the opponents, legalizing the recreational use of marijuana undeniably enables state and federal systems to collect additional revenues. For example, legalizing recreational use of marijuana by a state may generate approximately $4 million in form of tax revenues monthly. In the long term, however, health and criminal effects of marijuana may necessitate the state to part with $5 million monthly for rehabilitation of criminals and treatment of addicted patients. In this case, long term economic costs involved in preventing and controlling the health and criminal effects of marijuana will eventually outweigh the economic benefits associate with legalization (Smith, 72). In the debate, those advocating for legalization of recreational marijuana use are facing strong opposition from the debate’s opponents. In the debate, Adam Eidinger feature as the strongest opponent of recreational use of marijuana in Washington D.C. Adam is the chairman of Washington’s Cannabis Campaign. Another chief opponent on the debate is Evans David, chairman of the Drug Free America Foundation (Smith, 29). According to these opponents, marijuana is harmful to physical health. Despite being less harmful compared to alcohol and tobacco, marijuana is known to cause cognition problems in the brain. Psychosis is also associated with prolonged marijuana use. According to these opponents, legalizing marijuana use for recreational purposes will increase the drug’s use across the nation. Consequently, cases of psychosis and limited cognitive abilities will increase, thus undermining health objectives within the nation. Contrarily, proponents of the debate mentions that health effects of marijuana are way below benefits associated with legalizing the drug. Proponents of the debate assert that more harmful drugs, especially alcohol, should be prohibited prior to illegalizing marijuana (Easley, 125). According to the proponents, opponents of the recreational marijuana use cite national health objectives as reasons why marijuana should be illegalized. However, everyone across the nation knows that alcohol causes a heavier health burden compared to other drugs. In fact, health effects of other drugs are enormous compared to that of marijuana. In this context, proponents of the debate assert that if marijuana is illegalized because of health effects, then other legal harmful substances like alcohol should be illegalized, otherwise marijuana for recreational use ought to be approved by law. Opponents of the debate are also swift to highlight that recreational use of marijuana is the gateway to other drugs. According to these opponents, marijuana is the chief stepping stone to hard drugs like cocaine, heroin and worst of all methamphetamine (U.S. Congress, 18). Inasmuch as marijuana is less harmful, hard drugs are more harmful. In this context, opponents of the debate assert that legalizing recreational use of marijuana will increase consumption, thus correspondingly increasing the number of people graduating to harder drugs. Opponents mentioned that a research conducted by Yale State University in 2013 showed that youth using marijuana were 3 times more likely to try heroin, cocaine and meth compared to those who do not use marijuana (Easley, 127). Technically, marijuana use predisposes persons to hard drugs. Contrarily, proponents of the debate mentions that even in the absence of marijuana, people would still use hard drugs. Inasmuch as marijuana is cited as a stepping stone to other drugs, it does not necessarily means that everyone using marijuana will eventually climb up the ladder to hard drugs. According to the debate’s proponents, the reason why people use hard drugs is because enforcement of laws on hard drugs is failing (Finney and Lynn, 92). Law enforcement agencies are spending tons of resources enforcing laws on marijuana. Specifically, officers at state and federal level are spending time chasing marijuana offenders; time that would have otherwise been used in tracking down and apprehending offenders of hard drugs. In this case, elimination of marijuana will not necessarily cause a subsequent decline in use of hard drugs (Finney and Lynn, 94). However, the proponents mentions that resources should be effectively apportioned in order to ensure more time and money is used in enforcing laws on hard drugs instead of blaming marijuana as a gateway drug. In conclusion, it emerges that American citizens are gradually relaxing their perception on marijuana use. Currently, states like Colorado and Washington D.C are pioneering the way towards legalizing recreational use of marijuana. Expectedly, a certain portion of the American population is still conservative on the issue of marijuana, and wants the drug to be criminalized. However, a sizable portion of the American population is approving marijuana use for recreational purposes. Based on the essay, it is evident that each disagreement is welcomed by a neutralizing counter-disagreement; hence the debate intensifies. Currently, proponents and opponents of the recreational aspect of marijuana are engaging in a national conceptual battle on the pros and cons of the drug. Works Cited Aaron, Davis and Peyton, Craighill. Poll: D.C. voters poised to legalize pot, elevating national debate over marijuana. The Washington Post, September 18, 2014. Web, November 26, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/poll-dc-voters-poised-to-legalize-pot-elevating-national-debate-over-marijuana/2014/09/18/08360f90-3dfe-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html Easley, Janet. Pot Politics: Marijuana and the Costs of Prohibition. New York: State University of New York Press, 2013. Print. Finney, Sarah and Lynn, Taylor. “Legalization, Decriminalization and Recreational Use of Cannabis: A scientific and public health perspective.” Journal of Missouri Medicine 109.2 (2012): 90-97. Print. Kirk, Johnson. For Marijuana, a Second Wave of Votes to Legalize. The New York Times, October 2014. Web November 26, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/us/for-marijuana-a-second-wave-of-votes-to-legalize.html Lindsey, Martin. “Debates on Legalization of recreational Marijuana: Pros and Cons.” Journal of Pediatric Research 23.5 (2014): 34-41. Print. Rudolph, Joseph. Legalizing Marijuana: Drug politics reforms and prohibition politics. Pittsburg: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2014. Print. Sadie, Lane and Lee, Rodgers. Highway 420: The Colorado marijuana road to legalization. Denver: Space Independent Publishing Platform, 2012. Print. Sisal, Robert. “Marijuana Debates: Health Institute of Medicine versus the Division of Health Sciences Policy.” Journal of Pharmacology 101.6 (2014): 11-25. Print. Smith, John. Pros and Cons of Drug Legalization, Decriminalization, and Harm Reduction. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2013. Print. U.S. Congress. United States of America Congressional Record Proceedings and Debates of the 106th Congress First Session Volume 145 – Part 10. U.S. Government Printing Office, 2014. Print. Read More