The Legalization of Marijuana - Report Example

?Running Head: ARGUMENTATIVE ESSAY The legalization of marijuana The problem of the illegality of marijuana has created large expenditures in investigation, court costs, and incarceration for the American public. In addition, the cost of the crime to those who are charged with related offenses is far beyond the costs to society from its use. The concept of the ‘gateway drug’ excuse for the continued illegality of marijuana has long since passed its purpose and does not represent a truth that should support the illegal nature of sales and use of the plant. Marijuana, like alcohol, should be made legal in order to save financial costs of prosecution, to preserve the future of those who use the drug, and to ensure the safety of those who use it. The legalization of marijuana Statement of the problem Marijuana is a plant through which the dried leaves can be smoked or used as an ingredient in food from which an altered state of mental perception, or a ‘high’, can be obtained. The drug has similar affects to alcohol with less danger of violence or risky behaviors due to the imposed paranoia that it creates. Over half of all arrests for drug use are for marijuana. In 2009, 1,663,582 people were arrested for drugs, with 858,408 for marijuana possession. In comparison, only 99,815 were arrested for trafficking of marijuana. The DEA’s Administrators Judge, Francis Young concluded “In strict medical term, marijuana is safer than many foods we commonly consume” (Get the Facts, 2011). And yet, in terms of social currency, marijuana presents a danger to freedom and to financial health through the possibility of incarceration for having made the choice to use it. In addition, the use of marijuana has a far less damaging result to one’s reputation than does an arrest, conviction, and/or incarceration. One of the reasons that marijuana should not be illegal is because of the morality that it represents in the way in which a society should administer justice. Socrates defined justice as a state in which one took care of one’s own business and did not interfere in the business of others (Gardner, 2005, p. 126). Negative morality, a concept of Asian philosophy, suggests that morality should be found through stillness, through not committing an act that might cause another harm. The act of smoking pot is not specifically intrusive into another’s rights. The family of one might object, just as they might object to the use of alcohol, cigarettes, or even over consumption of food, but their rights are not violated by someone who chooses to use those vices and they are only affected if they choose to be affected by that use. However, criminalization of the use of marijuana interferes with the reputation of the user whose life and future may or may not include its future use, but will retain a public history of it if incarcerated. An alcoholic, cigarette smoker, or obese individual may have to live with the physical harm they have done to themselves, but not a public record that will prevent them from future opportunities. Marijuana has no more ill effects than those poor choices, yet provides the danger of having a record attached after use. The fact that marijuana is illegal is due to ethical egoism that creates a discourse about not how people do behave, but how people should behave (Ingram & Parks, 2010, p. 29). Marijuana is not attractive to those who seek power, the drug having a negative affect o ambition and creating a lax attitude towards life. Where alcohol supports social interactions among the powerful, marijuana is not considered appropriate as a social lubricant among those with power. Therefore, it is illegal as a way in which to impose morality through public fervor created by politicians who wish to have causes that they can use to promote agendas that might not have enough interest from the population to put them into office. Possible Solutions Other than legalization, the first solution that must be discussed is that of eliminating the supply. This has been attempted through many levels of effort, the lowest form being through criminalizing the growth, sale, and distribution of the plant. The DEA has burned crops, used airplane surveillance to seek out fields, and actively pursued underground grow houses in order to eliminate it from existence within the United States. The Nixon administration even went so far as to support poisoning the fields in Mexico to eliminate the upward trafficking of marijuana (Robinson, 1995, p. 169). However, the use of marijuana has not wavered due to tactics in trying to eliminate its presence. Traffickers always find a way to get their product to those who wish to use, the many ways in which the government have tried to destroy the plant, countered by the many ways in which growers will find a way to hide their crops. A more powerful dissuading force is that of social pressure. Social pressure is created when the majority of the members of a group is so opposed to an act that no member of that group would want to participate in that act. As exampled by Malmberg and Tegenu (2007), a society will respond to pressures that are placed where needs supersedes individual desires. As the needs for survival become more important than the selfish desires of the members of a society, those desires will be set aside. However, this solution is too utopian and broad to work successfully in the United States as the community of the nation is too loosely woven to create enough social pressure to successfully overwhelm personal desires to experiment with marijuana. The “Just Say No” program begun and supported by Nancy Reagan revealed that social pressure was too difficult a task to attempt in a society that is as diverse and disconnected as the United States. The cost-benefit relationship of the decision more often falls in favor of the risk because of the nature of adolescent cognitive development (Pratt, Gau, & Franklin, 2011, 123). Legalizing Marijuana Many solutions have been tried in order to dissuade the public from using marijuana. However, the ‘War on Drugs’, the primary resource for solutions for drug use in general, has resulted in increased problems for those who choose to use that extend beyond the personal issues that arise from use. In terms of marijuana usage, the effects of the drug do not justify the social problems that exist through the active pursuit of criminalizing its use. Previous to the ‘War on Drugs’ program, President Carter supported the decriminalization of marijuana when he states “Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug” (Robinson, 1995, p. 169). Therefore, the proposed option is to decriminalize the use of marijuana, allowing the social pressures that others will apply to its use to help to control its presence in society. The consequences of the drug being illegal are far worse than the choice to use it. The beginnings of decriminalization of drugs has been accomplished through the defined medical uses in certain states. To date, 15 states and Washington D.C. have decriminalized marijuana in some measure for medical use (Pro/Con.org, 2011). This concession is limited, however, by the fact that the federal government still has some jurisdiction and maintains that marijuana is illegal. When California passed Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, people of the state were allowed to use marijuana for medically valid purposes. The Clinton administration was quick to move to assert federal authority over the proposition stating that the although it was legal through the state, users were still acting criminally under federal law (Newbern, 2000, p. 1576). While resources are limited and the federal government has done little to bypass the state proposition, it shows that decriminalization is a difficult road. Argument for Legalization Decriminalizing marijuana will have a successful affect in creating benefit to society. Initially, the costs of investigation, prosecution, and incarceration will be alleviated and society will benefit from the lack of financial burden on the system. According to Raphael and Stoll (2009), the average cost of a years incarceration in a prison for one prisoner is $28196.00 (335). With 858,408 arrested for marijuana possession charges, if each one served a year, then the costs for just the incarceration will be $24,203,672,968 per year which does not include the high costs of the courts, lawyers, and the costs to law enforcement as money is spent on enforcing laws against marijuana. While not all arrests end in incarceration, the point is still made. The costs of enforcing laws against marijuana outweigh the benefit of criminalization. The social point of view on drug use is that it is an indulgence that cannot be tolerated because of the potential consequences that might be harmful to society. According to Armstrong, (2003) “the state views discreet incidents of detected possession not as manifestations of an over-arching addiction, but as isolated crimes deserving punishment”(p.133). However, marijuana has a relatively low rate of social consequences, therefore the disruption of criminal charges does not prevent social consequences, but creates them. Possessing marijuana for personal use is illegal because society fears that it will lead to further crimes, but this has not been a proven consequence. As President Carter suggested, the event does not justify the consequential legal and social issues that are created from being caught using marijuana. Consequences It might be considered that through legalization the abuse of marijuana will raise to an uncomfortable proportion. Commercialization of the drug through bars, lounges, and retail outlets will create a need for the industry to use advertising that promotes the use of the product. An example of this can be seen within the alcohol and tobacco industries whose advertising works towards creating demand where there might not have been any demand. One solution might be to outlaw advertising on marijuana and prevent its use in public venues. However, a positive consequence of the legalization is that the product that is sold will increase in quality and, through regulation, be free of any attached substances that would not be expected or would be unhealthy. As well, in order to hold certain jobs, clean drug testing can be implemented as a social pressure to not use the drug. It would be wise to outlaw the use of all substances that have a poor affect on performances in order to hold certain careers and positions. Call to Action Because of the dire consequences of an arrest on the record of those who wish to try or use marijuana, the punishment far outweighs the actual affects of use. As in all substances that alter the body, marijuana has negative consequences and should not be used outside of medical purposes, although for medical purposes it has been shown to have far fewer and less harsh side affects than the drugs it replaces. Drug use is not to be encouraged, but in youthful transgretions to try marijuana should not be a life altering experience as a court record prevents one from pursuing employment. Use during employment can be a reason to fire a person, creating all the social pressure needed to keep most people off of the substance. Legalizing marijuana has no real downside as use of it is not significantly diminished because it is criminalized. The advantages will only benefit society in financial relief and in freeing the futures of tens of thousands of people who must navigate criminal charges from youthful risky behavior. Resources Armstrong, A. (2003). Drug courts and the de facto legalization of drug use for participants in residential treatment facilities. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 94(1), pp. 133-168. Get the Facts. (2011). Marijuana. Drug War Facts. Accessed from http://www.drugwa rfacts.org/cms/Marijuana#Data Gardiner, Stephen Mark. (2005). Virtue ethics, old and new. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University. Ingram, David, and Jennifer A. Parks. (2010). The complete idiot's guide to understanding ethics. Indianapolis, IN: Alpha Books. Malmberg, B. & T. Tegenu. (2007). Population pressure and dynamics of household livelihoods in an ethiopian Village: an elaboration of the Boserup-Chayanovian framework. Population and Environment. 29(2), pp. 39-67. Meares, T. L. (1997). Charting race and class differences in attitudes towards drug legalization and law enforcement: Lessons for federal criminal law. Buffalo Criminal Law Review. 1(1), pp. 137-174. Newbern, A. E. (2000). Good cop, bad cop: Federal prosecution of state-legalized marijuana use after United States v. Lopez. 88(5), pp. 1575-1634. Pratt, T. C., Gau, J. M., & Franklin, T. W. (2011). Key ideas in criminology and criminal justice. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE. Pro/Con.org. (2011). Medical Marijuana. Pro/Con.org. Accessed from http://medicalmarijuana .procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881 Raphael, S., & Stoll, M. A. (2009). Do prisons make us safer?: The benefits and costs of the prison boom. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Robinson, R. (1995). The great book of hemp: The complete guide to the commercial, medicinal, and psychotropic uses of the world's most extraordinary plant. Rochester, VT: Park Street Press. Read More