Legalization of marijuanaMarijuana i.docx

Legalization of marijuana
Marijuana is a controversial and prominent issue in the society
today.
The use and possession of marijuana have been criminalized in
many
nations though some countries that have legalized it.
These countries impose penalties on the possession and the use
of the pot.
The information in the American public about marijuana has
been relatively inaccurate because of years of misinformation
and propaganda that private interests have often tabled for
personal gains.
.

Introduction
In most nations, the use and possession of marijuana have been
prohibited. However, there are some countries that have
legalized it while there are some that have not. These countries
impose various penalties on the possession and the use of the
pot. Some of these penalties are either simple or severe
regarding punishment. Besides, there are regions such as North
America, Europe, and South America have allowed small
quantities of the substance. Moreover, states such as Colorado
and Washington have not only legalized the use of cannabis but
also the possession of the drug majorly on medical grounds.
Marijuana is a controversial and prominent issue in the
contemporary society. Recent history has been characterized by
slanderous claims concerning the substance. In fact, truths and
facts have surfaced, and they have been heavily criticized
because of stereotypical views and perception of individuals
including the smokers.The information in the American public
about marijuana has been relatively skewed because of years of
misinformation and propaganda that private interests for
personal gains. This paper, therefore, seeks to provide insights
concerning the background of marijuana, the paradoxes on the
topic, the opposing and affirmative positions concerning its
legalization, and the stakeholder involved.
2
Cannabis is a scientific name used in referring to the hemp
plant.
Its consumption is in several forms such as in the form of dried

buds or flowers (marijuana), pressed resin from leaves and
flowers (hash or hashish), loose resin (kief), and hash oil which
is focus of removed resin using a solvent.
The users either smoke or consume the drug in food products.
Individuals react differently when they consumed the drugs
Background of marijuana
Brief overview background of marijuana
Cannabis is a scientific name used in referring to the hemp
plant. The plant has seeds, leaves, flowers, roots, and a stalk
with the three species being Cannabis ruderalis, Cannabis
Sativa, and Cannabis Indica. Its consumption is in several forms
such as in the form of dried buds or flowers (marijuana),
pressed resin from leaves and flowers (hash or hashish), loose
resin (kief), and hash oil which is a concentration of an
extracted resin using a solvent. In these forms, the users may
smoke them through either a pipe or in a joint. On another
occasion, it is often mixed with other herbs before being
smoked (Boffey, 2015). Moreover, it can also be used through
the consumption of food products such as cookies and cakes
among others. However, the effects vary on users. For an
instant, some individuals feel relaxed and calm while other fell
stimulated and energized after usage. Besides, it may result in
others feeling paranoid and anxious. Caulkins, Hawken, Kilmer
& Kleiman (2012) reveal that the effects are dependent on
factors such as individual's diet, dosage, cannabis strain,
individual's mood, history of usage, environment, and
biochemistry.

3
First is the system of classification of drugs especially from the
Controlled article Act of 1970.
Secondly, is the techniques used for approval of drugs by FDA.
It is based on harmfulness without recognizing the medical
value of the drugs.
Thirdly, is the issue of legalization and the use of the drug.
There are agreements that different nations have made toward
war on drugs.
Paradox of the Topic
As the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Congress of
the US weigh on rescheduling the use of marijuana, there
public's faith continues to fade concerning the system of
classification of drugs. This stems from the fact that it is in a
similar restrictive schedule 1 with other substances such as
cocaine. Others emphasize that it is quite strange to classify a
crude plant matter on a schedule that is less restrictive along the
approved medications specified by FDA. Even though those
opposing camps on the above issue have a point, a paradox
emanates from the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 which has
difficulty of recognizing the medical usefulness of the pot.
The approval of drugs by FDA depends on harmfulness without
recognizing the differences with those that lack approved
medical use. Therefore, through the classification of these
diverse drugs into the same category, the federal laws not only

continues to surprise the public but also makes it quite a
challenges for the researchers to evaluate the possibility of
restricted drugs having medical applications (Rosenthal, Kubby
& Newhart, 2003).
There is a compelling logic of the Controlled Substance Act
Schedules II to V. For an instant, some of the approved
medications may carry risks such as those related to overdose
and addiction. There are instances where the risks are minor but
real such as cough syrup while on others are significant (for
example cocaine and oxycodone). However, it is reasonable to
illuminate that the laws impose more controls on drugs
perceived to be riskier in comparison to those that are less
risky. Schedules that are low in the Schedule II to V have more
controls. For example, there is no avenue for the renewal of
prescription of drugs classified in Schedule II as opposed to
those in Schedule III to V. The crafters of the system ignored to
incorporate a distinction that considers the degree of risk
because of the assumption the lack of approved medical uses of
the drugs. It provided no reason for making regulatory
judgments concerning individuals or organizations permitted to
produce, prescribe or even research a drug (Caulkins et atl.,
2015).
The other paradox is on both the issue of legalization and the
use of the drug. There agreements that were made by various
governments across the globe on tackling the use of drugs such
as marijuana and cocaine among other narcotics. The US was
among those countries that led the war on drugs. However, the
rate at which the system has been crumbling is alarming. It
rewrites rules and regulations that dictate whether these drugs
should be allowed within the mainstream societies to
individuals suffering from various diseases, legalized or even
decriminalized to allow persons to use them for recreational
purposes. According to Caulkins, Hawken, Kilmer & Kleiman
(2012), the fragmentation of consensus on drugs presents a
challenge for the policymakers, as well as, a leadership vacuum
that is likely to be exploited by the drug cartels. The division on

policy and the conditions that have worsened between various
states in the country makes it difficult to safeguard the global
health of the public including the effects of trans-border
spillover. Lowinson (2005) asserts that nations that seek to
decriminalize marijuana and trade it with other nations will
encounter treaties that prohibit the use of the drug. As a result,
it may hamper a system that governments use to collectively
combat networks percieved to be for criminals and cartels.
4
The agreements or the systems have been crumbling.
the shatter of approval on drugs presents a challenge for the
policymakers, as well as, a leadership vacuum that is likely to
be exploited by the drug cartels.
The division on policy and the conditions that have worsened
between different states in the country makes it difficult to
safeguard the global health of the public including the effects of
trans-border spillover.
Nations that seek to decriminalize marijuana and trade it with
other nations will meet deal that ban the use of the drug. As a
result, it may hamper a system that governments use to
collectively combat networks perceived to be for criminals and
cartels.
Cont…..
The public opinion concerning the marijuana has changed
significantly with those calling for its legalization continuing to

grow.
These changes are across all the demographic groups, as well
as, the political parties.
The supporters of legalization have claimed the drug is not as
dangerous as tobacco and alcohol, they also claim that the drug
can be used for medical purposes.
Those in opposition, on the other hand, highlight the health and
family effects as some of the consequences of using the drug.
They also claim that the average of addiction and criminal
activities are likely to increase among the population when the
substance is decriminalized
Opposing and affirmative positions concerning legalization of
marijuana
The public opinion has undergone a dramatic long-term shift
concerning the issue of legalizing marijuana.According to
Christensen & Wilson (2014), a survey that was conducted
indicate that 53% of individuals in the US are for the
legalization of the use of marijuana while 44% are opposed to
it. These figures are a demonstration of the shift since a survey
conducted in 2006 revealed that those that were in favor for the
legalization were 33% while more than 60% opposed it. In fact,
the age brackets between 18 and 34 have been at the forefront in
calling for changes that allow individuals to use the substance.
Moreover, the support has increased across all the other age
groups except the silent generation who are between 70 and 87.

Besides the generational gap in favor of legalization, there
appears to be a continuous partisan and demographic difference.
For an instant, majorities of whites and blacks are or the
legalization more than the Hispanics. In addition, men are likely
to support it compared to the women. On political grounds, 60%
of the Democrats and the independents are in favor while only
40% of the Republicans support legalization. This shows that
both parties differ ideologically over the issue. The
conservative Republicans opposed to the legalization are in the
ratio of 2 to one compared to those in support. This difference
is also evident among the liberal and moderate Republicans just
as the liberal, conservative, and moderate Democrats (Basu,
2015).
These opposing camps often offer different perspectives
concerning the issue in discussion. The common theme for
providing insights on the use of marijuana is the danger that it
poses. For an instant, the persons who favor legalization often
cite its perceived medical and health benefits or at time see it
not to be as dangerous in comparison to other drugs such as
cocaine and heroine among others. Interestingly, the supporters
explicitly mention that substances such as cigarettes and alcohol
are more dangerous than marijuana. Jaffe (2007) explains that
antidrug activists elaborate that the legalization is likely to
result in many individuals using the drug which may
consequently lead to increased levels o addiction. Worse of the
level of potency which has been increasing significantly has a
high chance of rising. Humphrey (2016) reinforces that the
dependency on the substance occurs in approximately 10% of
Americans who have at one point or the other used the drug, as
well as, between 34% and 50% who on daily basis have smoked
it. Besides, there are roughly 3.7 million Americans who are
daily users of the substance. Individuals who have used the drug
for so long often find it difficult or are often unsuccessful in
their attempts to quit. The opponents, on the other hand,
illuminate the drug as a dangerous substance that not only
inflicts damage on individuals but also to the society at large

(Caulkins, Hawken, Kilmer & Kleiman, 2012).
There are four states including Washington DC that have
incorporated measures that permit personal use of the substance.
Piondexter (2014) illuminates that a section of the supporters
argue that the legalization would result in increase in revenues
from taxes and improvement in the regulation of the drug. There
is also a section of the supporter who contradicting argue that
there is likely to be problems and costs associated with
enforcing laws on marijuana. They just claim that individuals
should just be free to use it. As illuminated earlier, the
opponents of legalization claim that marijuana is both bad for
individuals and hurts the society. They vehemently oppose the
narrative that marijuana is less dangerous in comparison to
other drugs as they point out that its dangers entails issues such
as the possibility of addiction and abuse and sometimes can be a
gateway to harder drugs.
The supporters of legalization of the pot argue by making
comparison between the pot and tobacco and alcohol. Tobacco
and alcohol are also perceived as life threatening substances but
ironically they are legal. This often leads to more questions why
the pot is prohibited. Lowinson (2005) illuminates that the
difference between substances that are either illegal or legal
especially marijuana and alcohol should be examined. Jaffe
(2007) alerts that alcohol was once an illegal substance. The
cause for its prohibition was its ill effects. Some of the effects
tend to be direct while others alter the motor skills and
behaviors of the user. Humphrey (2016) highlights that one of
the direct effects emanates from heavy drinking. Alcoholics are
frequently diagnosed with depression. Rosenthal, Kubby &
Newhart (2003) explain that just getting drunk has the potential
of causing serious harm. For an instant, the main cause of brain
damage that emanates from alcohol is accidental trauma hence
just like marijuana; alcohol can be a threat to the health of an
individual. As for marijuana, it appears out of place to be
classified as an illegal substance. Even though its classification
for the purpose of regulation is as schedule 1 drug, it is

pharmacologically different from the opiate referred to as
analgesics. Besides, the debate on medical value of the pot
despite the facts being unclear continues to suffocate various
media channels. However, for alcohol or even tobacco, no such
debates have rented the air. Lowinson (2005) concludes that
cannabis is less dangerous and harmful in comparison to
tobacco and alcohol.
Claims that the pot is medicinal, makes users feel good and
calm are claims that are further from the truth. It is also
ridiculous to assert that it is not as harmful or dangerous as
alcohol and tobacco among other drugs. These reasons are not
weighty on the weighing scale to warrant the legalization of the
drug. Besides, their facts are absolutely wrong. The legalization
of marijuana in the United States is likely to increase the
number of pot smokers which in turn may cause effects on both
health and families of the victims. The legalization of the use of
the substance has the potential of making individuals of
constructing individuals to incorporate in their systems that
they can use it anytime on daily basis. As a result, it will
increase cases of drug use.Individuals will smoke it without the
fear of getting arrested or getting in trouble. Moreover, its
access is not only likely to be made easier but purchasing it may
also be cheaper. Piondexter (2014) asserts that the drug dealers
will also grow marijuana without the fear of being arrested
hence the easier access may result in increased cases of
addiction.
According to Caulkins, Hawken, Kilmer & Kleiman (2012), the
negative health effects are as a result of increased of the drug.
There is a belief by those who use the drug that it helps them
calm down when they are depressed. However, this is farfetched
lie since marijuana worsens depression. Rosenthal, Kubby &
Newhart, 2003) highlight other health effects as lung cancer,
lung infection, respiratiory illness, and cancer of the throat,
mouth and the esophagus. Jaffe (2007) stresses that individuals
who some the pot have higher chances of getting cancer
compared to those who smoke cigarette. Lowinson (2005) adds

that research has revealed that the rate of heart bit tends to be
faster after a few minutes when an individual has smoked. As
the heart beats faster, the blood pressure of the body usually
drops. Therefore, the users have higher changes of getting heart
attack especially within the first few minutes of smoking the
substance because it not only lowers the blood pressure but also
increases the rate of the heartbeat.
As illuminated earlier, legalizing the use of the substance may
affect the families of the users negatively. Humphrey (2016)
elaborates that the use of the drug, in 2006 dropped to 4 percent
from 14 percent in the late eighties. Jaffe (2007) illuminates
that the prohibition of the use of marijuana has significantly
contributed to the number of users being small.If it were legal,
young individuals in their youthful stages would use it. Parents
would also use, and its consequence is that they would be bad
example to these young persons. Moreover, the drug affects
young people or teens and may hamper their ability to
concentrate on their studies while at school. Parents who use
marijuana are likely to neglect their responsibilities or even
abuse their children. Therefore, the prohibition has the potential
of reducing the negative effects of the pot. When the barriers
against the drug are relatively many such as the fear of
succumbing from overdose or the fear of cops, then the chances
of an individual getting addicted are minimized. Rosenthal,
Kubby & Newhart (2003) conclude that the consequences that
emanate from legalizing the use of the drug outweigh those that
surface when it is legalized.
The proponents of legalization argue that the effects of banning
the substance range from ruined lives to wasted resources. The
US police invest a lot of time booking, arresting, and
imprisoning pot makers who the majority is law abiding
individuals. Unfortunately, some of the individuals who have
been arrested have spent more than decades in prison. In fact,
some of the cases are due to the possession of the substance for
personal use. Lowinson (2005) reports that, in 2012, the figures
given out by the FBI reveal that more than six hundred

individuals were arrested for possession of the drug. The figure
is more than that of heroin and cocaine and their derivatives
which were reported to be more than two hundred and fifty
thousand. Basu (2015) asserts that the arrest has the potential
of taking away officers from issue that are more urgent and can
also have severe consequences for the arrested individuals.
Piondexter (2014) adds that the cost of enforcing laws on the
possession of the drug, as per the American Civil Liberty Union
is approximately more than 3 million annually.
The amount of time the officer takes in arresting and booking a
suspect often encompasses more hours. The arrested person, in
turn, is likely to take more time to the local jail and court in the
attempts of resolving the cases. Jaffe (2007) stresses that the
ripple effects entail mare than making appearances in the
courts. Moreover, the huge number of individuals that are
arrested yearly and eventually do not go to jail usually suffer.
Their arrests are often recorded hence often cripple their
prospects of getting loans, jobs, benefits, and housing. With the
rate of underemployment and unemployment, as well as, the
country experiencing a housing problem, an arrest because of
use or possession of marijuana may cause serious consequences
(Fox, Armentano & Tvert, 2013).
According to Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart (2003), the benefits
of criminalizing the drug are relatively minuscule to
nonexistent. The criminalization of the drug is relatively
costly. The strange issue concerning war on drugs is that it has
completely flopped at minimizing the use of drugs even though
it huge amount of government money annually. Besides, the
three decades for which criminalization have been employed has
not had a significant effect on the general use. There are
approximately more than three million Americans who use the
pot annually. Even though there are chances of users of
marijuana being involved in criminal activities, arresting them
for either the possession or use can squeeze the life of the
criminal. The payroll for public safety does not commensurate
the efforts towards the war in discussion. Human Rights Watch

in 2012 tracked roughly thirty thousand individuals from New
York, who had never been convicted when the authorities
arrested them for possession of the drug. A greater percentage
of the group had no subsequent convictions of any felony. In
fact, only three percent were reported to have committed an
offense percieved violent. The use of marijuana by the law
enforcement agencies to correlate it with violent and dangerous
crimes does not make sense. Humphrey (2016) argues that being
high may not necessarily inspire the user to indulge in violence
hence there is no real case that smoking marijuana is likely to
lead one into committing worse crimes. Furthermore, the
getaway effect that is used to illuminate that the drug leads to
other drugs can be discarded (Fox, Armentano & Tvert, 2013).
Jaffe (2007) further adds that the illegalization of marijuana is
racist. Lowinson (2005) supports and highlights the history of
the drug. The onset of the campaigns towards criminalization
supports this assertion. These campaigns were firmly rooted in
discrimination against African Americans and Mexican
immigrants because at the time they were associated with the
use of the substance. In fact, the polarization of the word
marijuana was a technique that was employed with the aim of
associating the plant with individuals from Mexico. Piondexter
(2014) narrates at the time there were approximately ten
thousand total smokers within the US and most of them were the
Filipinos, the blacks, and the Hispanic entertainers. Their
techniques of entertainment were perceived to be satanic and
were perceived to emanate from the use of the pot. Moreover,
there were propagandas that resonated across the American
population that falsely claimed that the use of the drug resulted
in white women to have sexual relations with the Negros
including the other groups mentioned above.
However, the rate at which the blacks and whites use the
substance appears the same. Interestingly, the likelihood of the
blacks being arrested in comparison to the whites is relatively
higher. According to Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart (2003), the
war on marijuana appears to be overwhelmingly being employed

on African Americans on the street and not the white smokers
who smoke safely in closed doors. This disparity based on race
has been present throughout the time of which marijuana was
prohibited to today. The supporters of the prohibition of
marijuana may mean well but in practice, the war appears to
have been channeled towards assaulting the minorities, as well
as, their economic mobility. Basu (2015), on the other hand,
argues that controlling legal substances tend to be quite easier
than the illegal ones. Lowinson (2005) asserts that this should
be an adequate reason for those who oppose the use of the drug
to turn around and support legalization.
Humphrey (2016) uses alcohol consumption and a cigarette to
support the argument. For an instant, the government and
science have learned on a technique of keeping alcohol out of
reach fro children or minors. Effective marketing campaign
coupled with underage drinking contributed to the drop in the
usage of alcohol among the underage to 25% in 2011 from 34%
in the nineties. Besides, the increase in limits by the municipal
and tobacco taxes have also lead to the use of cigarette to drop
among high school students. The legalization in Colorado,
which commenced regulating medical use of marijuana,
provides an evidence regulation may help in combating the use
of the substance among the teens. Boffey (2015) explains that
the illegal markets with no regulations, standards, and control
of prices pose danger to the health of the public.
Piondexter (2014) argues that after several years of clogged
cases in the courtrooms, wasted resources, and a shift in the
perception of the public, the war on weed ought to come to an
end. However, legalizing it will not put a stop to the war on
other drug substances. Lowinson (2005) asserts that the debate
on weed should ben within the realms of facts while the focus
on the war against the use of drugs should be on supply.
Successful political movements tend to depend on how activists
engineer consent. They often target the majority of the public to
be in favor of their ideas. Politicians being individuals who are
often consumed by huge masses of individuals are likely to

jump on the ideas by passing laws that make these ideas reality.
Propaganda is a vital tool for driving the process. Humphrey
(2016) stresses that it is an ideal tool that is commonly used in
swaying the opinion of the public. Even though propaganda is
not a bad thing, it keeps individuals from perceiving issues
accurately. The proponents of marijuana are exceptional
marketers in the political arena. Their propaganda concerning
the substance has convinced the public about the myth that the
drug has never killed any person, it is not addictive, and that on
medical grounds, it is a wonder drug for the treatment of
epilepsy. Furthermore, they have managed to label their
opponents as individuals who morally judge the users. This has
consequently led to their messages appearing more credible
(Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart, 2003).
Piondexter (2014) reveals that facts indicate otherwise about the
above assertions. It is not only an addictive but also a gateway
substance and accidents related to its use have been rapidly
increasing.An individual who smokes weed usually inhales a
large percentage of pesticides in the buds. In fact, much of the
evidence that marijuana can treat an epileptic person is
anecdotal since they are not based on research and facts but on
personal accounts. The other rhetoric by the supporters of the
use and legalization of the drug is that they believe that when it
is permitted, then it will put an end to the war on drugs. This
assertion reveals naivety on their part because of their failure to
have a comprehension of the complexities for the national drugs
not being functional (Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart, 2003).
In 1971, Richard Nixon as the president of the US not only
declared but also waged war against drugs. His policy on this
particular war majorly targeted the supply (Lowinson, 2005). He
invested heavily in programs associated with drug treatment and
also targeted the main cartels. When President Ronald Regan
acquired power, his focused appeared different from that of
Nixon as his policy shifted on demand. He has a ‘zero tolerant
and gets tough' policyIt is an approach that hampered many
individuals from nonviolent offenses associated with the drug.

He in fact reduced funding on prevention, treatment, and
education programs and instead increased funding for the
enforcement of the law. The addicts were the enemy while the
crack epidemics worsened the matter. The policy grew and
eventually individuals began to perceive it to be driven partly
by racism. The 1986 Ant-Drug Abuse Act created compulsory
sentencing that leads to the increase in the population of
African Americans in prisons. Moreover, the penalty for
possession was more than that for heroine and cocaine.
Politicians began associating the war with the blacks who were
low income earning persons (Caulkins, Hawken, Kilmer &
Kleiman, 2012).
According to Christensen & Wilson (2014), the policy on the
side of the demand for the drug, in the last three decades, has
become a norm within the political atmosphere. Piondexter, O
(2014) argues that it has remained so because politicians have
used it for electoral gains. For example, despite President
Obama making remarks that appear friendly concerning the pot,
he continues to support the war on drugs. There are some
programs that the Bush's administration de-funded but with the
2009 Recovery and Reinvestment Act; Obama has allocated
some funds to programs that Bush defunded. Apparently, he was
driven by the need to convince and create the perception among
the Americans on his toughness on crime.
The Congress should pass the Sentencing Act of 2014 as the
initial step towards providing a solution to the problem. It is a
law that is likely to provide funding that helps in the mitigation
of overcrowding of prisons including racial disparities,
reforming the rules on sentencing, and better identification of
the dangerous offenders of the drug. However, it should be
noted that legalizing marijuana will not fix the policy on the
natioanl drug. The drug cartels, on the other hand, will shift to
other ways of making money by focusing on other hard drugs or
even searching for new markets that are likely to allow them to
smuggle the pot (Caulkins, Hawken, Kilmer & Kleiman, 2012).
Therefore, reforming the policy on national drug requires the

focus to be shifted back to the supply, as well as pushing the
politicians to do rationally more than jumping on the pro-
marijuana bandwagon. It is important that we get the debate on
legalization of marijuana off. Failure to design policies on
drugs from the lessons that have surfaced from the inability to
fight effectively on drugs is likely to lead us into enacting
shoddy policies that do not result in the benefit of the common
good. It leaves more questions than answers why individuals
would prefer taking the risk of legalizing marijuana. It just
provides a bad idea and picture to children, youths, parents, and
families. Increased use of drugs, negative implications on health
and families are some of the consequences of permitting the use
of the drug in the discussion (Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart,
2003). The supporters should have a though on whether
legalization will increase or decrease the use by individuals, the
negative implications on health and families, its effects on
school going children and their learning abilities. Also, is it
likely to make an individual to be depressed besides increasing
the risk of having cancer?
6
Stakeholders are:
1- Citizens
2- Medical communities
3- Law Enforcement
Stakeholders of the marijuana

There are a lot at stake when it comes to the issue of the use of
marijuana. Lowinson (2005) illuminates that many groups and
persons seek to either lose or gain something suppose the drug
is permitted in the society. They may be medical communities,
the citizens or law enforcement.
The decriminalization of medical marijuana will affect the
common citizens in many ways such as patients suffering from
various diseases that the drug can treat. The patients in states
that allow the use of the drug on medical grounds may
consequently suffer from risky side effects that emanate from
the use of the substance (Rosenthal, Kubby & Newhart, 2003).
Secondly, the impact of legalization of the drug on the US Law
Enforcement cannot be watered down. For an instant, there are
states in the US that permit medical cannabis. However, the
federal laws do not permit the use of the drug regardless of the
purpose. This contradicts the law of the state. Consequently, the
Law Enforcement is employed in the implementation of the
existing contradiction which has on many occasions favored the
federal law over those of the states (Christensen & Wilson,
2014).
Finally, the pharmaceutical and medical communities are likely
to benefit from the legalization of the substance in the
discussion. These communities having the drug at their disposal
equips them to handle the country;s increasing medical needs.
7
The debates and argument of decriminalization is unlikely to
fade within the median anytime soon.
The law enforcement bodies find it difficult to enforce laws of
these drugs because of contradiction of the laws. For an instant,
the US federal laws and State laws differ on the use of
marijuana.

However, the federal laws which criminalizes the drug often
override those of the states.
Conclusion
Boffey (2014) article on the New York Times vehemently
discredits the use of marijuana by citing that all drugs that are
prohibited are bad for individuals. It is against the narrative that
the federal law enforcement policies are attempting to create
using the prepuce of scientific connotations that illuminates that
marijuana is not only less harmful to human health but also less
dangerous compared to other prohibited drugs. The dangers of
this addictive substance on the health are hugely dependent on
the amount consumed, and the frequency with which an
individual uses it, the consumer's age. Basu (2015), on the other
hand, reports that the use of this drug substance has
significantly increased over time especially among adults of
middle age, blacks, and Native Americans. Basu (2015) adds
that the increase can be associated with the legislations that are
friendlier to marijuana, as well as, individuals' attitude towards
it. Moreover, Christensen & Wilson (2014) assert that the use
of this substance appears to be widespread among young adults
and the adolescents.
According to Boffey (2015), the heavy uses are likely to
bronchitis symptoms such as coughing and wheezing. The
article, however, refutes some resonance that has often
suffocated the media concerning this particular substance. For
an instant, there is a belief that continuous use of this drug may
lead an individual to use other dangerous drugs. A survey

conducted in the US revealed that more than a hundred million
individuals in America have attempted using the substance and
only four percent, and a third of the number have tried heroine
and cocaine respectively. Besides, despite the fact that
individuals who have tried using it have a higher potential to try
other drugs compared to the general population, it is not evident
if this particular drug prompts them to do so. Christensen &
Wilson (2014) support and add that in the American population
one in every three individuals has at one point used marijuana.
These individuals either smoke the dried leaves, seeds, stems or
even flowers of the plant and at times, it is mixed into food.
Regardless of the means through which it gets into one's system,
it affects everybody organ, the immune system including the
nervous system. Basu (2015) adds that it has the potential of
increasing heart rate thus lead to cases such as heart attack.
Besides, it may result in lower blood pressure, increase
bleeding, and also affect the blood sugar level.
Worryingly, the acquisition of marijuana by the minors has
become relatively easier, and this poses a significant problem.
Young individuals are more vulnerable in comparison to the
adults to the adverse effects of the drug. Basu (2015)
illuminates that this emanates from the fact that the brain
continues to develop actively until one gets to approximately
twenty-one years old. Its use among the high school students
despite declining in the recent past has begun increasing
recently. Christensen & Wilson (2014) illuminates further that it
was found that around four hundred thousand patients that visit
health care facilities use marijuana alone or combine it with
other illegal substances.
8
Basu, T (2015). Marijuana use in America has doubled in the
past decade, study says. Retrieved on 28th April 2016 from
http://time.com/4082683/us-marijuana-use-increase/
Boffey, P, M (2015). What Science Says About Marijuana.

Retrieved on 28th April 2016 from
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/opinion/what-science-says-
about-marijuana.html?_r=0
Christensen J, & Wilson, J (2014). Is marijuana as safe as – or
safer than – alcohol? Retrieved on 28th April 2016 from
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/20/health/marijuana-versus-
alcohol/
Caulkins, J. P., Hawken, A., Kilmer, B., & Kleiman, M. (2012).
Marijuana legalization: What everyone needs to know.
Rosenthal, E., Kubby, S., & Newhart, S. (2003). Why marijuana
should be legal. Philadelphia: Running Press.
Lowinson, J. H. (2005). Substance abuse: A comprehensive
textbook. Philadelphia, Penns: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
References:
Fox, S., Armentano, P., & Tvert, M. (2013). Marijuana is Safer:
So why are we driving people to drink? White River Junction,
Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing
Caulkins, J. P, et al., (2015). Considering marijuana
legalization: Insights for Vermont and other jurisdictions. Santa
Monica: Rand Corporation
Jaffe, C. (2007). Public Speaking: Concepts and skills for a
diverse society. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Belmont,
CA: Thomson Wadsworth
Piondexter, O (2014). Six powerful reasons to legalize
marijuana: from the New York Times. Retrieved on 28th April
2016 from http://www.alternet.org/drugs/6-powerful-reasons-
new-york-times-says-end-marijuana-prohibition
Humphrey, K (2016). The paradox at the heart of our marijuana
laws- and how to fix it. Retrieved on 28th April 2016 from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-
theory/wp/2016/04/26/the-paradox-at-the-heart-of-our-

marijuana-laws-and-how-to-fix-it/
Cont…

Legalization of marijuanaMarijuana i.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from smile790243

More from smile790243 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Legalization of marijuanaMarijuana i.docx