Legalizing Marijuana in the United States - Research Paper Example

Introduction Legalizing marijuana has been a debate for a good many of years. Marijuana is currently illegal in the federal government and every state government, although some state governments have moved to decriminalize the drug and/or legalize it for the purpose of medicine. The reasons for this are that marijuana was seen as a gateway to harder drugs, and that legalizing would cause more users. However, Portugal, who has decriminalized all drugs since 2001, shows that these fears simply are not true. In fact, Portugal has experienced just the opposite – because less mone is being spent combatting drugs, more money is spent in prevention and treatment. And, since users do not fear prosecution and are not stigmatized, they are more likely to seek treatment, which is an added bonus. Plus, criminalizing marijuana causes many problems - a drain of resources and manpower used to fight the war on the drug; the drain of not realizing tax revenue from the drug; and the loss of revenue that can be used to do research on the medicinal properties of the drug. Because of these problems, coupled with the fact that Portugal shows that our country does not need to fear that legalizing drugs will result in a substantial increase in drug use, legalization is the best idea for marijuana. The body of this paper will describe the problems with prohibition, then show the Portugal example, show the benefits of legalization, then come to a conclusion. Body The Controlled Substances Act has classified marijuana as a Schedule I substance, which makes it subject to the highest level of governmental control (Duncan, 2009, p. 1703). One of the reasons for this restriction is that marijuana is commonly thought of as a “gateway drug” – in other words, users of marijuana often get involved with harder drugs (Duncan, 2009, p. 1705). Other reasons are that prohibition allegedly “reduces marijuana trafficking and use, thereby discouraging crime, improving productivity and increasing health” (Miron, 2003, p. 1). Current drug policy punishes users and distributors alike. The reason why users are punished are because they ostensibly inflict harm on others; inflict harm on himself; that marijuana makes users “unproductive members of society” and that marijuana use is immoral (Blumenson & Nilsen, 2009, p. 6). According to Duncan (2009), billions of federal budgetary dollars have been committed to combatting marijuana distribution and usage, with this budget growing every year. In 2009, the budget for combatting all drugs was $14.1 billion, which is an increase of 3.4% from the previous year (Duncan, 2009, pp. 1711-1712). Of this, approximately 20% was for marijuana prohibition, and this does not include expenses at the state and local level (Duncan, 2009, p. 1712). The budget is aimed both at education and treatment, which ostensibly quells the demand; and enforcement, which targets the supply. Duncan (2009) estimates that the enforcement wing, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) receives an allocation of $2 billion per year, whereas the prevention wing only receives $3.2 million, showing where the budget priorities lie (Duncan, 2009, p. 1714). One casualty of the war on marijuana is the fact that there are many medicinal properties to the drug that are not currently available due to the prohibitionist model. Marijuana has been used to treat symptoms of HIV, by making patients feel an enhanced sense of well-being; Hepatitis C sufferers by helping these individuals get through treatment protocols; severe pain by not only dulling the patient’s pain but alleviating depression associated with the pain; glaucoma, by controlling ocular pressure that causes vision deterioration; cancer, by alleviating the symptoms of chemotherapy, such as nausea and vomiting; and multiple sclerosis, by alleviating muscle spasms (Chapkis & Webb, 2008, pp. 31-32; 119-121). The issue of medical marijuana has drawn wide support, as 31 states have recognized its medicinal values, yet the United States Supreme Court decided, in Gonzeles v. Raich, 545 US 1 (2005) that “the mere fact that marijuana…is used for medicinal purposes cannot possibly serve to distinguish it from the core activities regulated by the CSA” (Duncan, 2009, p. 1733). Moreover, federal law still trumps the state laws that allow medicinal marijuana, which still leaves these states vulnerable to drug enforcement at the federal level. Federal prohibition also affects medical marijuana in that, because all marijuana is prohibited at the federal level, the research on medical marijuana is chilled, and there is obviously no federal dollars that go into this research (Duncan, 2009, p. 1733). There is also an economic impact to the prohibition of marijuana. This is a debate that has been going on for years. The economic benefit would stem from different directions - number one, less money will be going towards enforcement on both the state and federal levels, and, at the same time, money will be coming in through tax revenues (Miron & Waldock, 2010). These positive economic benefits will presumably be offset by rising numbers of users, which will necessitate more funds for addiction clinics, and possibly by an increase in users that will drag down the economy because they are on drugs, but the net economic gain should be positive. As far back as 1995, economists have debated the economic effect of legalization, with 58% of economists favoring some sort of decriminalization of the drug (Thornton, 2007, p. 418). The reasons given were that a free market in marijuana “enhances economic welfare” (Thornton, 2007, p. 423); that stigmatizing and imprisoning drug users has a negative effect on the economy, that the black market represents a way for troubled youths to make money, and that marijuana prohibition diverts resources away from treatment programs; that taxpayers are the ones funding the drug war and create “spillover costs” (Thornton, 2007, p. 423); that legalizing drugs would enhance law enforcement while reducing crime; that reducing the price of drugs would have a positive benefit on use among the poor and the young; that the problems associated with drugs are not actually associated with drugs, but with drug laws; that the net benefits of legalizing drugs – reduced violence, reduced property crime, etc. – outweigh the potential harm of having increased users; that the potential harms are exaggerated or without merit; and that much of the crimes committed by addicts are related to the high cost of drugs, and that legalization, by bringing down the price of drugs, thereby reduces addict-related crime (Thornton, 2007, pp. 422-429). Alternatives to the present policy The above shows that the present policy of scheduling marijuana as a Schedule I drug is not working. There are two basic alternatives to the present policy: decriminalization and legalization. The first policy that will be examined is decriminalization. One method of decriminalization is the Portuguese model. Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001. Under this model, drugs are still illegal, but the possession of them is administratively handled, not criminally. Meanwhile, drug trafficking is still handled criminally (Greenwald, 2009, p. 1). Decriminalization there has been so successful that “very few domestic political factions are agitating for a repeal of the 2001 law” (Greenwald, 2009, p. 1). Moreover, none of the nightmare scenarios that were warned about – that drug usage would increase exponentially or that Portugal would become a haven for drug tourists – has come to pass. Portugal’s drug rates have not been adversely affected by the passage of the law, and, in fact, their rates are among the lowest in Europe. Meanwhile, so-called “drug-related pathologies” – such as STD rates and drug-related deaths – have dramatically decreased, due to the fact that the Portuguese government has an enhanced ability to treat drug offenders due to the decriminalization (Greenwald, 2009, p. 1) – obviously, decriminalizing drugs would make it easier to treat individuals, since the individuals do not need to fear that they will be prosecuted if they seek help. Moreover, removing the stigma of drug use further served to facilitate drug abusers to seek treatment (Greenwald, 2009, pp. 8-9). While decriminalizing is a step in the right direction, in that, as shown by Portugal, it might actually have a positive effect on drug usage in America, it is not the ideal situation, as it does nothing to alleviate the drug violence that is caused by the criminal penalties being imposed upon trafficking. In other words, in Portugal, trafficking is still criminally enforced, which means that it is still underground and black market. Therefore, the distribution is still in the hands of the criminals and there is not a benefit realized from taxation of the product, as it is still technically illegal in that country. Total legalization would realize the gains of alleviating the crime associated with the drug being supplied by the black market, in addition to the ones realized in Portugal – less drug use because treatment programs will get the resources previously being used to fight drugs, and treatment being facilitated by the fact that those seeking treatment need no longer fear prosecution. Legalization would also have the positive economic benefits that economists have suggested would occur, in that tax revenue will be flowing in at the same time that less money is flowing out. Moreover, medical marijuana would have a real chance to be successful. More research can be put into this area, as federal dollars will be available for this research. Conclusion Legalizing marijuana is the best policy for the United States. The current drug policy has led to a multitude of problems, such as economic issues that stem from putting money into the futile effort of enforcing drug laws, while not realizing tax revenue that would come from the drug being legalized; and stifling research into the medicinal properties of the drug. Moreover, the fears that the government has about legalizing – that drug use will suddenly explode, and that more individuals will get into hard drugs, because marijuana is a “gateway drug” – have proved unfounded in Portugal, who has decriminalized all drugs for over nine years, and has realized nothing but positive benefits from the move. However, since decriminalizing does not do anything to remove the drug from the black market, therefore the drug violence will not be affected, and also does not provide for tax revenue that will come from legalizing the drug, decriminalizing is not the ideal solution. Legalization of marijuana will most likely have the positive economic benefit of bringing in tax revenue while, at the same time, dramatically reducing governmental expenditures that were used to fight the war on drugs. This extra money can then be used, as Portugal has shown, to fund prevention and treatment programs, which should actually have a salutary effect on the situation. Moreover, there are many promising medicinal properties that come from marijuana, and the research into these properties has been stymied by the lack of federal dollars. Freeing up federal dollars to research these positive medicinal effects can be very helpful for patients who are suffering from illnesses that might be helped by this drug. Legalizing marijuana therefore seems to have many positive benefits and few negative ones. Bibliography Blumenson, E. & Nilsen, E. “Liberty Loss: The Moral Case For Marijuana Law Reform.” Indiana Law Journal 85(1) (2009): 1-21. Chapkis, W. & Webb, R. Dying to Get High: Marijuana as Medicine. New York, NY: New York University Press, 2008. Duncan, C. “ The Need For Change: An Economic Analysis Of Marijuana Policy.” Connecticut Law Review 41(5) (2009): 1701-1740. Greenwald, G. “Drug Decriminalization In Portugal: Lessons For Creating Fair And Successful Drug Policies.” Cato Institute, 1-30 (2009) Available at: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf Miron, J. & Waldock, K. (2010). “ The Budgetary Impact Of Ending Drug Prohibition.” Cato Institute (2009): 1-12. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1710812 Thornton, M. Prohibition Versus Legalization: Do Economics Reach A Conclusion On Drug Policy? The Independent Review XI(3) (2007): 417-433. Read More