Federal Legalization of Recreational Marijuana - Research Paper Example

Federal Legalization of Recreational Marijuana Marijuana is a very controversial drug that spurs a lot of debate as to whether it should be legalized for recreational purposes or not. Most of the states already have legalized marijuana for medical purposes although the federal government prohibits any use of it. Proponents and opponents to this debate each try to argue their side to show why recreational marijuana should be or should not be legalized but no consensus has been reached due to the complexity of the problem especially resulting from federal and state laws contradictions on the laws pertaining to drug use. Proponents argue that legalizing marijuana would increase revenue, lower burden on law enforcement, increase national security, safeguards individual rights, and make consumption safer. Opponents on the other hand, argue legalizing marijuana would create a gateway for harder drugs like cocaine, emergence of black markets, create new users, cause health problems, and loss of productivity. The issue is thus a headache for the federal and state governments bearing in mind the public support that legalization has been getting over the years. Leaders and mostly governors are also at a loss whether to succumb to people’s needs or use their discretion or moral values in deciding whether to support or not. The issue is thus becoming a great concern not only for law enforcement officers but also parents, educators, health care workers, government and the public as a whole. This paper is to discuss the debate surrounding federal legalization of recreational marijuana to get an insight into its complexity. Whilst Hanson et al, Donovan et al, Rushefsky, and Fox et al argue that legalization is necessary for a safer society; Martel is against such a move. Morgan on the other hand, gives a balanced view on the subject. Martel argues that it is the media especially print media who constructed the problem of recreational marijuana in the 1960s, reported on it and mobilized groups around the issue by creating a moral panic (Martel 11). Moral panic in this case refers to “sudden rise of an issue, often out of proportion with reality, and it is more or less equally rapid disappearance from public agenda” (13). This moral panic created fear in the public that their social values are being threatened by drug use giving rise to Pro-marijuana groups in its defense to the public and also law governing bodies. This Martel believes should be rejected at all cost. He agrees with Blanchard the Attorney General’s sentiments that it is time to take into account feelings of families and people concerned with the youth especially the young middle-class people. He thinks legalizing recreational marijuana would expose children to daily use of it (Martel 114). Moreover, increased use of the drug would definitely lead to health problems and consequently increased health costs which the hospitals are not prepared to handle due to financial constraints. This is true but no matter how we look at it; the youth are still exposed to its use so in my view such concerns are not valid. Moreover, before prohibition, marijuana was used as a cash crop to make fiber for cloths and many societies like Greeks, Chinese and Indians used it for religious ceremonies and not many cases of health problems were reported (Hanson et al. 408). Young people often try to test things that are prohibited so instead of curbing its use, prohibition will only lead to increased use. Another argument is that marijuana is hazardous and unpredictable. Proponents of legalization would argue that there is no evidence to support this claim. To support his claim, Martel gives the example of Massachusetts Superior court ruling whereby after review of evidence, marijuana was proven to be socially and personally harmful and dangerous drug and since this position has never been refuted but instead, it has increasingly been supported by research, it proves that marijuana is hazardous and as such should not be legalized at any cost (Martel 114). For Martel therefore, what should be is to educate the youth on the harm and problems of marijuana use. This is a good idea worthy of praise but there is a problem in that some youth are predisposed to taking illicit drugs. This is where the complexity of the problem comes in, it is hard to change people’s attitudes but I do agree with Martel that it is worth trying. Martel’s ideas are supported by Morgan who argues that legalization would open up black markets for the substance (Morgan 60). In most cases, when activities are considered illegal, black markets come up with drag barons supporting its production and distribution. Besides, it would come at a cheaper price than market value of legalized marijuana due to non-taxation. The drug also just like alcohol is intoxicating and this would result to loss of productivity as people report to job high on the substance. Another strong rejection of legalization is that it is a gateway to harder drugs like cocaine and heroin (Morgan 68). It is believed although not proven that marijuana is the starting point for other dugs hence legalizing its use for purposes other than medical use would make people susceptible to drug abuse and consequently a problem for the society. This may be the case but a study carried out in Britain showed that millions of people had tried cannabis and out of these only few had tried Marijuana (Hanson et al. 424). Other reasons may account for progression into hard drugs such as upbringing or peer pressure. Opponents thus have a hard task of proving that marijuana is gateway to hard drugs. Proponents (Hanson et al 2014; Donovan et al. 2014; Morgan 2011; Rushefsky 2013 and Fox, Armentano & Tvert 2013) on the other hand, defend their position against such accusations by their opponents. In the U.S polls are often taken on various subjects and in regard to recreational marijuana, Pew research poll is often cited. According to 2013 Pew report, most Americans were in favor of legalizing (Hanson, Venturelli & Fleckenstein 405). According to the national survey, 59% were for legalization while 45% were against while Gallup poll indicated majority support for recreational use (Donovan et al. 107). If this is anything to go by, it only goes to show that public opinion is for legalization of recreation marijuana. This is supported by its legalization in Colorado and Washington states in 2012. Moreover, governors are forced to succumb to direct democracy in the states and approve bills supporting its legalization. A good example is the Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper. Despite being an ardent opponent of legalization, he was forced to sign a bill into law legalizing a regulatory framework for cultivation, distribution and processing of industrial hemp which is a type of marijuana (Henson et al. 405). So what if the public is for legalization? Opponents would ask. This does not mean that the drug is not harmful or that it would not lead to usage of harder drugs. Besides, what about the percentage that does not support legalization? Do their views not count? These are hard questions to crack as they involve morality versus what is legally acceptable. Proponents also believe that legalization is a lucrative business. California is the biggest exporter of marijuana to the U.S supplying 40% of it (Hanson et al. 407). If legalized, California would gain revenue of $1.3 billion a year in tax (Morgan 59). Replacing prohibition would also save the government approximately $7.7 billion at both federal and state level. Besides earning revenue from excise and sales tax, the government would save a lot in terms of law enforcement. According to Fox, Armentano and Tvert, approximately 800, 000 Americans are arrested every year for drug use (chp 6). In 2007, 873, 000 arrests were made for illicit drug use and half of them were pot arrests. This is a waste of law enforcement resources and destruction of lives as those arrested lose employment, child custody, subsidized housing, voting privileges and welfare benefits. The Federal Bureau of Investigation reports indicate that 1 smoker is arrested every 45 seconds in U.S (Morgan 70). The government spends $ 150 billion on police and courts per year. Legalization would save the government such resources and direct them to other uses (Fox et al. chp 6; Morgan 60). The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) a non-profit organization for marijuana legalization suggested the savings be used to cover anti-terrorism port security measures required by the Maritime Transport Security Act of 2002. Opponents argue that the tax is not enough to cover state and federal debts, as more would be spent on rehabilitation and addiction treatment (Morgan 4). However, this is sound argument as there is no need to arrest people for smoking marijuana while thousands of people are dying of tobacco and alcohol related illnesses and accidents. Besides, high tax rates would also discourage recreational users. Proponents also argue that legalization would make the drug use safer and ensure dangerous products are not distributed. Users should know the THC levels of marijuana before use and this can only be possible if it is legalized. In the illegal market, dangerous chemicals are added which could jeopardize people’s health but regulation would ensure quality, purity and potency (Fox et al. ch 6). Moreover, marijuana is not as dangerous as tobacco and alcohol which are legal drugs (Morgan 77; Rushefsky 297; Fox et al. chp 6). It is thus safe for recreational use. For Morgan, it is impossible to overdose marijuana hence similar laws as that of alcohol should be put in place to regulate marijuana use. However, others suggest stricter penalties for users while still others think regulation is unnecessary since the drug is not harmful. Rushefsky reiterates this and argues that tobacco and alcohol are more dangerous as evidenced by emergency visits in hospitals due to alcohol. However, he has misgivings and thinks that marijuana is as dangerous as those legal drugs and that the harm they cause is more serious and obvious because they are legal (297). For Fox, Armentano and Tvert, marijuana is safer as studies have revealed that alcohol is more addictive and deadly causing 79,000 premature deaths every year in the U.S (Chp 6). It is also associated with most cases of domestic violence. This is why three groups: Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER) advocate its legalization as no study links it to long-term use and increased mortality. Another argument advanced by proponents of legalization is that prohibition is against the U.S constitution and a violation of the Bill of Rights. People are free to associate, and not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures (Rushefsky 295). These freedoms are contained in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S constitution. According to Morgan, marijuana use is only dangerous to the individual hence the government has no right to stop people from engaging in personal behaviors (Morgan 78). These sentiments were echoed by representatives Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Ron Paul of Texas in 2011 when presenting a bill to end Federal marijuana prohibition Act of 2011. They stated that government “should not prosecute adults for smoking marijuana” (Hanson et al. 405). For the liberals and conservatives alike, the war on drugs propagated by President Nixon is an erosion of country’s civil liberties and a violation of constitutional rights (Rushefsky 295). However, there are mixed feelings when it comes to decide whether to protect personal freedoms or national safety. This may be right but on the other hand, those who consume such drugs are a health risk and also a problem to society. I believe that placing some restrictions on behavior to avoid personal harm spilling over into society is welcome and is entrenched in the same constitution. In this case, proponents have a hard nut to crack in convincing the opponents that prohibition is a violation of their liberties. From these arguments for and against legalization of recreational marijuana it is evident that the issue is very complex and not likely to have an agreement in future. There are those who think legalizing marijuana will deter crime and reduce recreational use while others believe it will only enhance drug use, more crimes and consumption of even more hard drugs. Even among those who are for legalization, there are disagreements as to whether penalties should remain the same, be stricter or eliminated all the same. This is made more complicated by the conflicting legislation between federal government and the states. Even though Colorado and Washington legalized recreational marijuana in 2012, the federal government does not recognize this as it still prohibits all drug use. There are still those who view application of the law as discriminatory favoring the whites at the expense of African Americans and Hispanics (Fox et al. ch 6). Despite these complexities, the proponents of legalization do have an upper hand in the debate. Works Cited Donovan Todd., Smith Daniel., Osborn Tracy and Mooney Christopher. State and Local Politics. Mason, OH: Cengage, 2014. Fox Steve., Armentano Paul and Tvert Mason. Marijuana is Safer: So Why Are Driving People to Drink? 2ed. Chelsea Greenwood, 2013. Hanson Glen R., Venturelli, Peter J and Fleckenstein, Annette E. Drugs and Society. Bartlett, 2014. Martel Marcel. Not This Time: Canadians Public Policy and the Marijuana Question, 1961-1975. University of Toronto Press, 2013. Morgan, Kayla. Legalizing Marijuana. Minnesota: ABDO, 2011. Rushefsky Mark. Public Policy in the U.S. M.E Sharpe, 2013. Read More