Op-Ed by Kate Riley - Essay Example

Op-Ed by Kate Riley Riley, Kate. New York Times joins Seattle Times in calling for marijuana legalization. 28 July 2014. 30 July 2014 . In her op-ed, Kate Riley begins by acknowledging the support given to the Seattle Times editorial board by the New York Times for its call to legalize marijuana in 2011. The movement to legalize marijuana has been led for a while by Washington State in the Pacific Northwest, where there is to be a vote in November on whether to legalize marijuana (Riley 1). While Washington State has already legalized marijuana, the vote in the State Congress faces challenges in how to set up a system of licensing and challenges from the federal government. According to the article, the impact of the Seattle Times op-ed was significant because it lent support to the push for marijuana legalization in the State of Washington, especially as the residents chose to legalize marijuana for purposes of recreation. The op-ed states that, at the moment, Oregon and Alaska in the Pacific Northwest are preparing to cast their votes regarding marijuana legalization (Riley 1). According to the op-ed, the legitimate concerns about the use of marijuana by the people in these states do not have any perfect answers. However, the same is true for alcohol and tobacco, which are legal all the same. This is one of the main arguments given by the opinion piece in favor of legalizing marijuana. The editorial also supports its claim for the legalization of marijuana in Seattle and the larger Washington State by stating that the balance of legalizing marijuana on all levels, including issues on law and order, societal impact, and health effects, falls on national legalization (Riley 1). By doing this, it is expected that decisions about whether to allow medicinal or recreational marijuana use will be taken to the state level, where the right decision can be made. As the Seattle Times has been opining for some time, especially since recreational use of marijuana in the State of Washington is legal, the federal government should not come in the way of marijuana legalization at the state level. The article goes on to laud the federal government for allowing federally insured banks to offer banking services to businesses dealing in marijuana in Washington State. The article also claims that the US Justice Department should allow the federal agency responsible for the Columbia Basin project to allow use of the das water for irrigating cannabis. This claim is supported by the article’s contention that the Bureau of Reclamation does not have any law-enforcement duties and should, instead, be only mandated to provide water (Riley 1). Essentially, the Seattle Times article lauds the New York Times for using its influence to boost the legalization movement in the State of Washington. The current op-ed piece also uses evidence from an earlier op-ed in the Seattle Times about the costs related to prohibiting marijuana. In support of their claims to legalize marijuana, the op-ed article states that the illegal status of marijuana in the State of Washington has portended immense costs on its citizens (Riley 1). For example, the smokers who are arrested suffer costs as they are stigmatized as criminals, which may result in students losing scholarships due to one conviction. In addition, it also supports the legalization movement by stating that prohibition leads to costs in wasted police time, public resources in building prisons and jails, and court time. Prohibition is also noted to result in corruption of police departments and disrespect for the law, as well as lost privacy and civil liberties through invading private homes and tapping private telephones. Moreover, prohibition also encourages the youth to live a life of crime, which leads to a rise in murder, injury, intimidation, assault, and theft. Additionally, it also leads to inter-state crime and fuels multinational criminal gangs. Finally, prohibition also leads to lost local and state revenues, especially for the State of Washington that the article states could be worth over $300 million annually (Riley 1). However, I disagree with this op-ed article as it is my opinion that marijuana should not be legalized. While the article does raise some solid issues regarding the human and financial cost of maintaining prohibition on marijuana, which can be seen in American prisons that are currently overstretched, making it legal will come at an even larger cost to the people of America and, specifically in this case, the people of the Pacific Northwest. These include its highly addictive nature, its effects on mental and physical health, and decimation of smokers’ lives. Background Information Barry, Richard, Hiilamo, Herbert & Glantz, Samuel. "Waiting for the Opportune Moment: the Tobacco Industry and Marijuana Legalization." The Milbank Quarterly. 92.2 (2014): 207-242. Print. This article begins by stating that recreational marijuana use was legalized in Colorado and Washington States, while Uruguay was expected to be the first country to legalize the distribution and sale of marijuana (Barry et al 208). Indeed, public health advocates and policymakers are faced today with reduction of discriminatory, costly, and ineffective prohibition of marijuana, while, at the same time, preventing a disaster akin to that seen due to use of tobacco that kills over 6 million people every year. Using secret documents on the tobacco industry from the Tobacco Documents library, the article found that tobacco companies have shown interest in legalization of marijuana since the 70s as a potential product. The tobacco companies have, over time, reacted to shifting government and public opinion with regards to legalization, adapting their strategies at corporate level to prepare for demand in the future. Therefore, it is clear from the article that tobacco companies are ready to invest in the cannabis market in order to market the product and increase its already widespread use. As such, the authors conclude that policymakers must learn from the failures and successes of tobacco regulation to prevent the market from being dominated by organizations that want to increase profits and market size only (Barry et al 240). Cerdá, Magdalena; Wall, Melanie; Keyes, Katherine; Galea, Sandro & Hasin, Deborah. "Medical Marijuana Laws in 50 States: Investigating the Relationship between State Legalization of Medical Marijuana and Marijuana Use, Abuse and Dependence." Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 120 (2012): 1-3. Print. Marijuana, according to this article, is the most widely used illegal substance in the US, although the role played by legislation regarding substance use, community norms, and other macro-level factors in determining dependence, abuse, and use of marijuana is still unknown (Cerdá et al 1). As a result, this article sought to investigate the correlation between dependence, abuse, and use of medical marijuana and legalization at the state level. They found that people living in states that legalize medical marijuana are more likely to use marijuana, as well as be dependent and abuse it, compared to people in states that do not have similar laws (Cerdá et al 2). In addition, the authors also found that increased risks of dependence or abuse of marijuana in such states was due to the higher rates of marijuana use. Therefore, states that have laws legalizing medical marijuana tend to have increased marijuana use rates. However, the article does not investigate whether this relationship is of a causal nature or because of a common underlying cause like community norms, which support medical marijuana legalization and use. Wall, Melanie; Poh, Ernest; Cerdá, Magdalena; Keyes, Katherine; Galea, Sandro & Hasin, Deborah. "Adolescent Marijuana Use from 2002 to 2008: Higher in States with Medical Marijuana Laws, Cause Still Unclear." Annals of Epidemiology. 21.9 (2011): 714-726. Print. This article begins on the premise that over fifteen states have legalized the use of marijuana since 1996, particularly for medicinal reasons (Wall et al 714). As a result, it seeks to investigate the association between the use of laws to legalize marijuana and use of marijuana by adolescents in the United States using national and state data from Washington and Colorado. Using data for over 20,000 adolescents aged between 12 and 17 years of age, they find that states that have medical marijuana laws had, on average, a higher use of marijuana among adolescents. In addition, these adolescents showed a lower perception about the risks involved in using marijuana compared to other states that do not have medical marijuana laws. Although it is not possible from the article to tell the reasons for increased use of marijuana by adolescents, it seems that community norms have something to do with it (Wall et al 716). Criticism of the Editorial/Opinion Column While there are, for certain, human and financial costs in maintaining the prohibition on marijuana, which can best be seen in American prisons, making it totally legal as opined in the op-ed will come at an even bigger cost. To begin with, the article’s claim that marijuana should be legalized or decriminalized should not be taken at face value because the opinion article does not offer any counter-claims to their claim. In addition, the other claim that the lack of perfect answers to legitimate concerns about marijuana is not an issue because there are no answers for alcohol and tobacco may also be refuted. For example, a lot of research has been conducted on the latter two drugs that have resulted in state and federal government rules against advertising alcohol and tobacco. The supporting evidence used by the article is drawn from an earlier op-ed piece in the Seattle Times. Although the evidence is somewhat compelling, it does not offer any links or background research information to the evidence used. Despite the fact that most of this information is true, information on the exact research used would have enabled the reader to put it into the context of the current argument. The other claim that the Bureau of Reclamation does not have law-enforcement responsibilities fails to fully consider the agency’s role in ensuring the best use for water resources. The agency cannot be expected to enable use of water resources for activities considered illegal by the federal government. There is also an argument to be made about the opinion article’s logic, especially with regards to the costs of not legalizing marijuana. While the financial costs of prohibiting marijuana on the state government are high, these are not the only costs that should be considered in making a decision as far reaching as legalizing marijuana. Social and health costs are just as important. Thus, in examining the issues that make prohibition of marijuana unnecessarily costly for state governments, it is difficult to make a reliable and correct inference without accounting for other costs. Indeed, it can even be argued that the conflict between the state governments and the federal government regarding legalization of marijuana is due to the potential health costs on the federal government. Argument While the article does raise some solid issues regarding the human and financial cost of maintaining prohibition on marijuana, which can be seen in American prisons that are currently overstretched, making it legal will come at an even larger cost to the people of America and, specifically in this case, the people of the Pacific Northwest. These include its highly addictive nature, its effects on mental and physical health, and decimation of smokers’ lives. To begin with, for some people, marijuana is extremely addictive. It is not controversial to say that cannabis is addictive and most people who are addicted to marijuana, as well as those who have experienced it, say that the addiction is profound. Probably the most startling fact about marijuana addiction is that, even when people are addicted to it, they are able to function normally for many years but eventually the high subsides and the begin to have difficulties (Barry et al 217). It is at this point that some individuals will begin to smoke more marijuana to maintain the high, resulting in health and social difficulties and costs. Barry et al (p. 217) claim that out of the eight million people classed as dependent or addicted to drugs aged over twelve years of age, at least 4.5 million have had dependence on marijuana or abused the drug. Therefore, it is obvious that making marijuana more available and legal will increase the number of people who are dependent on or abuse marijuana. Although prohibition of marijuana may be detrimental to financial costs borne by state governments in enforcing it, the drug is detrimental to the mental health of some people. Indeed, it was found that people using marijuana have poor memory and abnormal structure of the brain, while those who use marijuana over a long time undergo changes in the brain that are akin to schizophrenia. In addition, the effects are worse if the individual begins to use the drug when they are younger. In their report against legalization of marijuana, Cerdá et al (p. 2) state that heavy marijuana use by adolescents leads to increased psychotic, mood, and anxiety disorders, as well as persistent neuro-cognitive and IQ impairments. Therefore, there are social costs to think about as well, especially when these symptoms afflict criminal-minded people. The very legalization of marijuana could, rather than solve security issues, make the streets less secure. Marijuana also affects the individual’s physical health, having an effect that is just as bad as smoking cigarettes. It results in various lung complications and it has been shown that these appear almost 15 years earlier than complications caused by cigarette smoke (Cerdá et al 2). In fact, although it is true that marijuana is not as bad as crack cocaine or meth, it is delusional to think that it is not terrible for anyone’s health. Finally, marijuana also portends social cost to the society as it decimates people’s lives. While the article uses the opinions of Bruce Ramsey and Maureen Dowd about their experiences with marijuana as a fun and harmless drug that gave them an amazing outdoor experience (Riley 1), the article fails to consider that other people have lost jobs, dropped out of school, and breaking social bonds because of marijuana. For example, people normally do not want to associate with a “pot-head” in society. Wall et al (p. 715) reports that adolescents who have smoked marijuana for at least thirty days prior to being interviewed showed serious diminishment in learning, memory, and attention. These students also showed lower class grades and have less chance of being admitted to college than students who do not smoke. Their abilities to organize and remember In addition, they also report that employees in a post office who had tested positive for cannabis had a 78% chance of absenteeism, 85% chance of injury, and a 55% chance accidents (Wall et al 715). Moreover, they also indicate that, in Australia, at least 5% of car accidents were found to be linked to marijuana. Conclusion The article from the Seattle Times, in spite of presenting solid evidence to show the financial costs of prohibiting marijuana to state governments like Washington, fails to take into consideration the social and health costs. With the millions of death related to alcohol and tobacco, especially drunk driving, it would be inaccurate to endorse the complete legalization of marijuana when it already portends social and health costs despite not being fully legal. Such a policy that allows state governments to make marijuana laws that is inconsistent with the federal laws will only burden the federal government further, especially regarding healthcare and social welfare. The question that must be asked before legalizing marijuana should be whether this will make America a better country overall. It is only when all these factors are considered that a reliable way forward can be found. Until all the facts are counter-balanced, marijuana should stay illegal. Work Cited Barry, Richard, Hiilamo, Herbert & Glantz, Samuel. "Waiting for the Opportune Moment: the Tobacco Industry and Marijuana Legalization." The Milbank Quarterly. 92.2 (2014): 207-242. Print. Cerdá, Magdalena; Wall, Melanie; Keyes, Katherine; Galea, Sandro & Hasin, Deborah. "Medical Marijuana Laws in 50 States: Investigating the Relationship between State Legalization of Medical Marijuana and Marijuana Use, Abuse and Dependence." Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 120 (2012): 1-3. Print. Riley, Kate. New York Times joins Seattle Times in calling for marijuana legalization. 28 July 2014. 30 July 2014 . Wall, Melanie; Poh, Ernest; Cerdá, Magdalena; Keyes, Katherine; Galea, Sandro & Hasin, Deborah. "Adolescent Marijuana Use from 2002 to 2008: Higher in States with Medical Marijuana Laws, Cause Still Unclear." Annals of Epidemiology. 21.9 (2011): 714-726. Print. Read More