The date April 20th, also commonly known by a large subculture as 420, has become a day to celebrate and consume cannabis. There is a growing number of people that use this day as a platform to argue, as has been done for decades, for the legalization of marijuana. This article will briefly stipulate the argument (in italics) and look at the logic and truth behind them, in an attempt to discover possible strengths and possible fallacies.
The topic of legalization is important in that it reflects our collective values as a nation, as well as what we consider acceptable for ourselves and for our youth. This changing attitude is reflected in a recent California Proposition to legalize marijuana, Proposition 19. This is a reflection of current attitudes and is important for if it had passed, Proposition 19 would have been the first law in the western world to legalize marijuana (side note: The Netherlands "Amsterdam" has only de-criminalized marijuana, it's still illegal there, and in fact, is facing growing opposition and concerns). A growing trend of acceptance has swept across the United States. In 1970 only 12% of the population thought marijuana should be made legal, a number that climbed to 44% by 2009, with 78% of self-described liberals in favor. The question that arises: Are these perceptions grounded in science and fact or is it an acceptance based on other factors?
A common argument for legalization is: Marijuana is not addictive. Based on what appears to be unbiased research, approximately 10% of marijuana users will develop an addiction to the drug that is severe enough to affect school, work, and family life. As for dependency, approximately 10% to 30%, which simply means people who feel a "need" to use the drug to alleviate a variety of symptoms. So where did the idea that marijuana is not addictive come from?
The idea that marijuana is not addictive has been part of a pro-marijuana campaign arguing its medicinal benefits and its benign effects. These arguments have often come in response to the government's opposite extreme stating the hazards of the drug. Recent studies have shown that the THC concentration has increased. The Mississippi Potency Project has been tracking THC concentrations for the past three decades and reports a median potency of under 4% in 1983 to a median potency of 10.1% in 2008. According to drugs tested coming across the US/ Mexican Border, the potency has increased from 4.8% in 2003 to 7.3% in 2007. But this doesn't necessarily translate into higher levels of addiction. It appears from controlled studies that marijuana smokers will adjust how much they inhale based on THC content. This demonstrates that higher THC simply means less is needed to get high. It doesn't, however, mean there is a direct link to increased dependence. Yet, dependency rates have gone up. Rising dependency rates appear more likely to be a function of accessibility and perceived safety.
Another claim made in conjunction with marijuana being non-addictive is that it is medicinal and harmless. As more research is conducted it does appear that certain aspects of cannabis do have medicinal effects. The challenge, however, is that these claims have been used as an argument to "prove" that all marijuana is safe. This argument fails logically and seems to have decreased the "fear" of use and thereby increased the number of youth who have tried or regularly use the drug. If one truly wants to improve certain medical conditions, leading a healthier lifestyle is probably a better approach. Especially since research does indicate use of marijuana can affect mood, brain development, and other cognitive functions.
What about legalizing it as a source of revenue? Taxing cannabis would be a source of income that would save the government money. The cost of policing, criminalizing, prosecution, and incarceration of cannabis users is expensive. It, however, seems hard to believe that an increased number of users, increased availability and access wouldn't then increase the number of people dependent, thereby increasing social costs for rehabilitation. Furthermore, increased usage would require more police forces, or potentially, yet another federal department to deal with regulating and policing the drug (we all know, whether we wanted another governmental agency or not, it would likely be created - Federal Department of Marijuana, anyone?). Last, looking at the social costs compared to tax revenue for two legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco and making a direct comparison doesn't look favorable. One can see that the costs of policing, DUIs, deaths, rehabilitation, violence, lost productivity, and health costs all seem to far outweigh the tax gain. If one were to assume increased marijuana usage, then increased dependence and abuse would logically follow. These increase revenues would be more than offset by social costs, even if marijuana created less than half the problems of alcohol. To expand the economic picture beyond this narrow scope would become difficult, for one would have to take in even more factors and make comparisons where data is not readily available.
If you legalize "weed" the government can regulate and control, thereby keeping the overall number of users low. This is similar to the previous argument. The easiest comparisons to readily make would be to look at current legal drugs and how effectively they are controlled, how pervasive they are as a problem and what costs they incur. The most abused drugs by teenagers are alcohol, tobacco, and prescription medications, in that order. Alcohol and tobacco rates are falling, while marijuana rates are climbing. This is likely due to a successful campaign to warn of the dangers of underage drinking and the effects of smoking. The rise of marijuana use can possibly be attributed to the perceived risk of these drugs as compared to others. Despite these rising numbers, marijuana isn't as accessible and approximately 7.4% of 12 to 17 year olds have tried it, compared to 51% for alcohol.
Alcohol, like tobacco and prescription medications have been legal for decades with local police departments, a couple of federal agencies, and numerous laws regulating them. Despite all these governmental layers of control, their abuse rate is far higher than for any other drug. The reason for this is simple, access. Most homes have alcohol, prescription medications, and many have tobacco. This prompts the question: Why would legally accessible marijuana, sold in stores and found in homes be any different? In fact, looking at data for Los Angeles after an increase in pot dispensaries and therefore greater availability, the numbers of users greatly increased. Looking at Amsterdam after the decriminalization and the "legalization" of cannabis cafes, the user rate shot up by 200%. It is hard to imagine it would be any different in the United States. More access, less stigma, and no legal repercussions would only serve to increase the number of users.
The last argument to be entertained is one of reduced violence. It is often stated that legalizing marijuana would reduce cartel violence and gang numbers. By depriving these organizations of capital and by removing a key source of revenue they would cease to exist and peace would reign.This unfortunately is not likely. This makes two big assumptions. One, that the sole reason for the existence of cartels and gangs is marijuana and without it they would crumble. Two, that criminal organizations wouldn't adapt and still attempt to control the sale and distribution of marijuana through legal channels.
Transnational drug organizations, cartels, specifically those in Mexico, are responsible for tens of thousands of brutal murders, kidnappings, assassinations, beheadings, and crippling corruption. They make money through the sale of methamphetamines, cocaine, marijuana, human smuggling, kidnapping, assassinations, sex trafficking, money laundering, ID theft, weapons sales and slavery. Cartels exist as a product of weak and corrupt government. Removing marijuana from the equation could hurt the enormous profits the cartels make, but isn't likely to destroy them or dismantle them. In fact, if recent events are an indicator, there is the possibility of increased violence as cartels would struggle to maintain the profits they have become accustomed to. A more desperate organization would fight harder for control of the markets they already have. This has already been demonstrated by President Calderon's crackdown on cartels in Mexico. As for gangs, they have existed through the ups and downs of marijuana's popularity and will continue to exist. Gangs often exist as a product of a difficult environment of social inequality and perceived lack of opportunity, and a need for "respect." In order to make money and gain respect, gang members perpetuate a long list of crimes and marijuana is not always a part of that equation in terms of sales. Therefore, it is unlikely that by legalizing marijuana you would solve the gang problem.
In conclusion, it would appear that many of the arguments for legalizing marijuana haven't been fully flushed out. There are many other arguments made on behalf of legalizing marijuana and many are done passionately and eloquently, just as there are many that argue against it with equal fervor. When I initially set out to write this article I strove for a balanced approach, but the more I read the more it became apparent that the two extremes may both be wrong.
Based on my research and experience dealing with those who have used the drug, the legal institutions within this country and the work I've done for the government it doesn't appear that it would save the tax payer money, nor would it reduce the rates of usage. Legalizing cannabis wouldn't be responsible for dismantling criminal enterprises. There are merits in the potential uses of marijuana for medical purposes. The challenges posed here are the polarized viewpoints on both sides that have made some of the research potentially biased and more political. Furthermore, large drug companies have likely stayed away from the drug, either because it lacks the effects they seek, or for the inability to patent it and make profits. Marijuana does seem to help in curbing the symptoms of numerous illnesses, but should not be mistaken for a cure. In this respect it is similar to many pharmaceuticals. There are side-effects and the possibility of dependence and addiction. Pharmaceuticals are strictly regulated with clinical trials and in the manufacturing process for dosage and potency. This is currently not the case for marijuana.So in deference to 420, legalization doesn't seem to be the best alternative. Perhaps a method of regulated de-criminalization and improved research could pose a less radical approach to a drug that has been around for hundreds of years and isn't likely going anywhere soon.
If you are using marijuana in an attempt to help alleviate the symptoms of a chronic disorder, perhaps trying a new approach to leading a healthier life could be a better approach. Health, Fitness, and Happiness! Plenary Fitness: http://www.plenaryfitness.com
Article Source:http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Lawrence_Sylou-Creutz_Ojermark
Did you find this article helpful?00
Get Involved0 commentsSuggest a topicArticle ToolsPrint this articleE-mail to a friendEzinePublisherReport this articleCite this articleStay InformedGet notified by email when new articles are added to this category or written by this author.Subscribe to New Article Alerts: Health and Fitness
Lawrence Sylou-Creutz Ojermark
Health and Fitness Article FeedFind More ArticlesSearchSimilar ArticlesHow to Quit Smoking Marijuana The Successful WayLegalizing Marijuana: Where Do I Stand, Stagger and Eventually Fall Down on the SubjectShould Marijuana Be Legalized? - Three Things You Didn't Know About Medical Cannabis Until NowWeighing the Pros and Cons of Legalizing MarijuanaShould Marijuana Be Legalized?Marijuana As Medicine Instead of a DrugCannabis ControversyThe Legalization of Marijuana - Part 2 of 2Medical Marijuana - How It Can Help YouAn Overdose of Medicinal MarijuanaRecent ArticlesBotox and Our Fascination With YouthLiposuction - What Is It?Subjects You Must Know To Work In Medical Billing and CodingWhat Is a Leaky Gut?Getting a Sports Physical FastA Career in Health Care Is a Dream Job in Today's EconomyBuying a Hearing Aid: What You Should Be Aware OfCan a Hearing Aid Help You?Buying a Hearing Aid: When to Exercise CautionDiet, Exercise, and ConsistencySubmitted On April 13, 2012. Viewed 16 times. Word count: 1,768.MLA Style Citation:Ojermark, Lawrence S.".".13 Apr. 2012EzineArticles.com.25 Apr. 2012
Ojermark, L. S. (2012, April 13). . Retrieved April 25, 2012, from http://ezinearticles.com/?To-Legalize-or-Not-to-Legalize-(Cannabis)-That-Is-the-Question&id=7000561Chicago Style Citation:
Ojermark, Lawrence S. "." EzineArticles.com. http://ezinearticles.com/?To-Legalize-or-Not-to-Legalize-(Cannabis)-That-Is-the-Question&id=7000561
EzineArticles.com© 2012 EzineArticles.comAll Rights Reserved WorldwideAbout UsFAQContact UsMember BenefitsPrivacy PolicyShopSite MapBlogTrainingVideo ArchiveAdvertisingAffiliatesCartoonsAuthorsSubmit ArticlesMembers LoginPremium MembershipExpert AuthorsEndorsementsEditorial GuidelinesTerms of ServicePublishersFollow UsTerms Of ServiceEzines / Email AlertsManage SubscriptionsEzineArticles RSS
Brak komentarzy:
Prześlij komentarz