Benefits of Legalized Marijuana - Research Paper Example

 Benefits of Legalized Marijuana Several countries throughout the world are working to decriminalize or legalize less harmful drugs such as cannabis (marijuana). It has been suggested, and in some cases demonstrated, that legalizing or at least decriminalizing marijuana can help to reduce violent crimes and significantly decrease the number of people incarcerated for drug use which would allow more individuals to remain contributing members of society. It would free up funds and law-enforcement manpower to instead combat the more urgent societal issues. Although not legal in the Netherlands, cannabis is openly tolerated and can be both purchased and consumed in one of several Amsterdam ‘coffee houses.’ Inexplicably, the city has not been thrown into anarchy which, evidently, is what the opponents of cannabis legalisation are afraid of. The evidence demonstrates that legalizing cannabis for medicinal in addition to general purposes would prove a benefit to society, evidence which is well-known throughout the scientific, political and public arena but this collective knowledge has yet to be acted upon. The economic feasibility of decriminalizing marijuana has become a much-discussed subject in recent years. The federal government presently spends a lot of capital on law enforcement to combat distributors and producers of drugs. By legalizing drugs this could eradicate much of the profit, bloodshed and corruption of that trade. If legalizing drugs is to have a positive effect on the crime rate, drugs must be made both inexpensive and available. Studies have repetitively suggested that prohibiting marijuana in the U.S. has not shown to be efficient or effective. According to the Drug Policy Alliance, “U.S. federal, state and local governments have spent hundreds of billions of dollars trying to make America ‘drug-free.’ Yet heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and other illicit drugs are cheaper, purer and easier to get than ever before. (“England.” 2006) The damage done by the ‘war on drugs’ to underprivileged countries that produce the drugs and poor persons within the wealthy nations who buy the drugs exceeds any benefits achieved by the current bans. These government’s drug laws have not produced the desired results of reducing drug use, instead a great number of innocent people have had their lives ruined. “Many critics argue that the increased toughness of that policy has done more harm than good. Some go so far as to suggest that drugs should simply be legalized” (Caulkins, et al. 2005). If marijuana were legalized, governments would have the ability to regulate quality and, like alcohol, the ages allowed to purchase and the ability to add safety warnings to help educate users. People in this country who only use small amounts of marijuana have routinely been arrested and jailed for mere possession; actions that don’t take drugs off the streets or persuade more people to quit using the them. At the same time, imprisoning those who possess marijuana creates a burden on society as tax dollars must be increased to support these people who are no longer free to secure employment outside prison. The domino effect of this circumstance puts more children and their families onto the welfare role, contributing to their consequential failure and dependence on society. (“England.” 2006) “In the United States, drug use is illegal and the police hunt down drug users to throw them in prison. Four thousand people died from illegal drugs in the US last year and we now have more than 600,000 people in prison on drug charges.” (Schaffer, 2006) While much literature exists that provides evidence for both sides of this subject, what seems very clear is that the ‘war on drugs’ remains unsuccessful at its principal goal – that of stopping drug use within the nation’s border. High school students continue to find marijuana extremely easy to come by, numbers regarding the use of marijuana remain stable and there is an increasing trend in the country for reforming the archaic laws. The entire reasoning behind drug war is prohibition, limiting the supply which would in turn limit use. The hypothesis holds that by limiting the source so as to make it practically impossible to acquire the demand for these products will inevitably, and somehow magically, disappear. Prohibition strategies that center on stopping the supply lines have shown over the decades to be ineffective. The persistent efforts that have been spent have made bringing marijuana into the country a high risk undertaking. The great risk enables sellers to charge extra for their products based on the high-stakes gamble inherent in the delivery of illegal substances, which makes it an appealing proposition for organized crime. Those who are employed within the drug trade take risks not simply in terms of legal ramifications, but are also pitted against other criminally minded sellers, who are not controlled or regulated by any governing body and consequently have only the criminal element to answer to. The tactics utilized by these elements hardly follow the standard rules of conducting business. Instead, they rely on corruptive techniques and violence. Thanks in large part to the laws constraining the flow of these products organized criminals also have access to virtually unlimited funds which make it possible for them to buy their way through the justice system. “Conventional drug enforcements of imprisoning hundreds of people charged with drug offense only draw more people into the market, replacing those that are only serving temporary sentences.” (Boyum/Kleiman, 2003) The laws have proven unable of keeping marijuana on the other side of the borders and out of the hands of youths. Limiting supplies can never be successful enough to discourage demand for the product. Ironically, the laws enacted to prevent the flow of marijuana and other drugs have instead served to increase their allure among potential users. Though the government has worked very hard to include anti-drug programs within the schools, there remains considerable seduction qualities in drug use simply because they are illegal, putting them in prime position for misuse by those persons who want to explore options beyond the status quo, the counter-culture as it was once referred to. (Eggen, 2005) Eleven states allow the use of marijuana for medicinal use, Rhode Island the most recent joining California, Alaska, Hawaii, Colorado, Oregon, Nevada, Montana, Washington and, Vermont and Maine. However, laws enacted by the federal government supercede those of the states. Therefore, physician within the borders of the U.S. can not lawfully dispense marijuana nor can a patient legally possess it. “The U.S. Supreme Court said federal law preempts any efforts by the state to authorize the use of marijuana for any purpose, including medicinal” (Schweitzer, 2005). Most Americans are not against the medicinal use of marijuana and states are legalizing the practice but any use of marijuana remains against federal law which generally translates to stiffer sentences if caught. The U.S. government has recently softened its position on allowing marijuana dispensaries located in states where it is legal but other than that small waiver has continued its absolute prohibition of Marijuana, a method that is one of the most common policies utilized but has evidently not succeeded as intended. This practice has not eliminated drug traffic. It has however, altered the arrangement of supply and demand by forcing the illegality of this market. Illegal marijuana makes criminals of the sick. The many medical benefits are well known. Cancer patients undergoing conventional chemotherapy treatment are also required to take a number of secondary drugs to try to control their pain and nausea. Marijuana can naturally address these issues as is attested to by a cancer patient and former police commissioner. In addition to relieving his nausea, Jo Daly said he was “able to drastically reduce my dependence on more powerful prescription drugs that I was prescribed for pain and nausea. With the help of medical marijuana, which I ingest only occasionally and in small amounts, I no longer need the Compazine, Lorazepam, Ativan and Halcion. No combination of these medications provided adequate relief. They also caused serious side effects that I never experienced with marijuana” (1997). He was able to take significantly less drugs with significantly fewer side effects by using natural marijuana rather than any combination of chemical drugs. Many doctors recognize the benefits of marijuana in treating patients with arthritis. “The spinal cord is loaded with cannabinoid receptors. These cannabinoid compounds [from marijuana] apparently reduce swelling from inflammation [a major symptom of arthritis]. But more than that, they kill the pain from inflammation specifically. They work on the peripheral nerves that carry pain from your joint into the spinal cord” (Walker, 2000). Those who suffer from bowel disease face sometimes life-threatening flare-ups with very few clinical options. There are only a limited number of traditional medications available for these conditions and these are frequently ineffective in fully managing the symptoms. However, “beneficial effects [of marijuana use] were reported for appetite, pain, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, activity and depression. Patients also reported that cannabis use resulted in weight gain, fewer stools per day and fewer flare-ups of less severity” (Hergenrather, 2005). Weight gain is an important consideration for these patients as their condition causes malnutrition and low weight. The benefits of marijuana to AIDS and HIV patients have been recognized by Dr. Kate Scannell of Kaiser-Permanente Northern California Ethics Department (2003): “From working with AIDS and cancer patients, I repeatedly saw how marijuana could ameliorate a patient’s debilitating fatigue, restore appetite, diminish pain, remedy nausea, cure vomiting and curtail down-to-the-bone weight loss.” These are the properties that make marijuana more effective for the treatment of so many ailments without the need for further medication to counter side effects. Marijuana use can reduce or even eliminate the need for more harmful drugs in a number of conditions that share some of these symptoms including: Glaucoma, Hepatitis C, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Nail patella, Cachexia (wasting syndrome), Chronic Pain, Nausea, Seizures, Epilepsy, Muscle spasms, Multiple sclerosis, Depression, Eczema and Neuropathy. Some negative social aspects can be attributed to both legal and illegal drug use. The acquisition of drugs in the illegal market almost certainly creates more negative affects than would its distribution under a legalized system. The additional social ills associated with the illegal drug trade include violence with no legal recourse and the criminalization of those who purchase in the illegal market, crowding prisons and resulting in the early release of violent criminals, both a revenue draining reality. Illegal drug trade also increases health care costs for all as there are no regulations regarding strength and quality of illegal drugs. Prohibition has probably reduced the scope of drug distribution but has also ensured negative economic effects. Finding the balance between these two effects is one of the key considerations in the welfare analysis of drug policy. (Clark, 2003) Most European nations separate cannabis from the harder drugs in its laws and discussions but the United States generally does not. The U.S. continues to be heavily engaged in its ‘war on drugs’, which began in the 1970’s and was accelerated by President Reagan in the 1980’s. While cannabis remains illegal in the UK, it is no longer mandatory that casual users of the drug must be arrested when caught. Instead, arrest can be detained until exacerbating circumstances arise, such as the use of the drug in the presence of minors. The U.K. system is somewhere between the more relaxed laws of The Netherlands and the stricter laws of the U.S. but are still among the harshest in Europe. Though cannabis is technically illegal to possess and sell in both nations, casual users in the U.S. face long prison sentences. By contrast, in The Netherlands, individuals over the age of 18 who smoke it discretely are not arrested and possession of five grams or the cultivation of less than five plants is not prosecuted. In addition, there are several coffee shops and cafes that are licensed to sell cannabis within their shops and are permitted to hold up to 100 grams behind their counter and another 500 grams in storage. A law passed in 2003 also permits doctors to prescribe marijuana for medicinal use through local pharmacies. (Coughlin, 2003) Decriminalization implies different meanings to different people. To some it means simply legalisation which takes the profit, thus the crime out of the drug trade. One interpretation involves three steps. The first is to make drugs such as cannabis legal under restricted circumstances, but not as controlled as it is now. Secondly, sound reasoning should prevail in substance abuse policies. The third aspect is to manage our tax money more wisely and discontinue wasting billions of dollars on criminal law enforcement techniques. Instead, these funds should be diverted into treatment and abuse prevention. Varying degrees of decriminalisation is often confused with total legalisation. Alcohol is legal, for example, but it is not legal to operate a car under its influence or to sell it to those less than 21 years of age. (Nadelmann, 1990) It is theorized by the economics top minds that there are financial benefits to legalizing marijuana in spite of the concerns levied against this reasonable approach to the issue. By re-examining their attitudes according to available evidence, other nations have demonstrated that a cutback the prohibition efforts can lead to very constructive results in terms of both in the safety and the overall health of its citizens. The prohibition approach taken by countries such as the United States have led to an astronomical increase in the rates of crime and numbers of incarcerated individuals as a result while having little to no impact upon the actual availability and usage rates within the country’s borders. The Netherlands allows for cafes and coffee houses with special licensing permits to distribute marijuana. Company employees are not fired for having inhaled at lunch, but are able to readily find counselors if they find they have become psychologically addicted to marijuana’s effects. However, the choice is not simply a black and white issue of whether or not to decriminalize. While drug laws are relaxed regarding the Class C narcotics in England and the Netherlands, they still remain against the law. The prohibition of marijuana makes little sense and disallowing the medicinal use to cancer patients living every day with agonizing pain and glaucoma patients who depend on marijuana to see better, for example, should be unthinkable in a civilized society. Works Cited Boyum, David & Kleiman, Mark A.R. “Breaking the Drug-Crime Link.” Public Interest. (Summer 2003). April 17, 2011 “Cannibis Laws Eased by Blunkett.” BBC News. (July 11, 2002). Caulkins, Jonathan P. Peter, Reuter, Martin Y. Iguchi, James Chiesa “How Goes the ‘War on Drugs’? An Assessment of U.S. Drug Problems and Policy” Drug Policy Research Center. Prepared for the Ford Foundation by the Rand Corporation (2005). April 17, 2011 Clark, Andrew E. “The Economics of Drug Legalisation.” Paris: DELTA (Departement et Laboratoire d’Economie Theorique et Appliquee). (May 2003). Coughlin, Geraldine. “Dutch to Prescribe Cannibis.” BBC News. (September 1, 2003). Daly, Jo. Conant v. McCaffrey. (February 14, 1997). April 17, 2011 Drug Policy Alliance. “England.” Drug Policy Around the World. (2006). April 17, 2011 Eggen, Dan “Marijuana Becomes Focus of Drug War” The Washington Post (May, 2005). April 17, 2011 “ Hergenrather, Jeff. “Cannabis Alleviates Symptoms of Crohn’s Disease.” O’Shaughnessy’s. (Autumn, 2005). Nadelmann, Ethan. “Should Some Illegal Drugs be Legalized?” Science and Technology. Vol. 6, (1990). pp. 43-46. Scannell, Kate. “Mr. Attorney General, Listen to the Doctors.” San Francisco Chronicle. (February 16, 2003). Schweitzer, Sarah. “R.I. may allow medical marijuana” The Boston Globe (June 28, 2005) Schaffer, Clifford A. (n.d.). “Basic Facts about the War on Drugs.” Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. (2006). April 17, 2011 Walker, J. Michael. “Marijuana as Medicine.” Arthritis Today. (December 2000). Read More