Ethical Dilemma in Smoking Marijuana - Essay Example

?Ethical Dilemma College: Ethical Dilemma in Smoking Marijuana Introduction Many a times in life, human beings are faced with situational dilemmas in which they have to follow one path and leave the other. The fact that following each path has its own positive and negative aspects, it makes it a complex matter of choice and critical decision making must be engaged to come around the situation. Smoking Marijuana is an ethical dilemma that often every youth in the society has to come across sometimes in their lives. While smoking Marijuana has well known medical advantages that have been proven through scientific research, it is matter that conflicts with both the legal and the moral standards of a human being. It is indisputable that marijuana smoking has many ill effects not only to the smoker but also to the community surrounding a smoker. Consequently, while confronted with such a dilemma, there is the need to engage in ethical decision making to make the choice that best fits a person. The theories of normative ethics are superior tools of decision making when an ethical dilemma arises. The theories of Utilitarianism and the deontological ethics have been highly regarded in the philosophy of decision making, especially when individuals seek to choose between right and wrong actions in the society. While the Utilitarianism theories express that human beings will make a choice depending on the end effects, the deontological theory proposes that human beings have primary “duties” that they have to fulfill in every decision that they make. The objective of this paper is to critically apply normative theories in solving the ethical dilemmas that come along with smoking marijuana. In this case, smoking marijuana is an ethical issue that is surrounded by both legal and moral issues that can only be solved through critical decision making techniques. The dilemma in smoking Marijuana Marijuana is a drug substance that has garnered a lot of interest from both researchers and the legal bodies in its application as a drug in the health sector and its use in the society. In the medical sector, marijuana has been used in the treatment of various diseases and research shows that this drug may find even more applications in the future of medicine. Currently, the drug has found application in treatment of cancer patients, as an anti-pain drug to reduce headaches, improving appetite among HIV patients and with treatment of the side effects of chemotherapy. However, in the field of medicine this drug is administered in small portions as the medical experts recognize the effects that come along with the use of the drug in large quantities (Jabelle, 2013). From this perspective, it is indisputable that this drug has many positive effects that are beneficial to the human race. On the other hand, the use this drug in the social circles has generated a lot of heat in its use and abuse in the social circles. The government in many states has waged war against marijuana use and laws have been enacted to prohibit its consumption in the society. While many states such as the United States have opposed any move to legalize this substance, other nations such as Jamaica have legalized its use in the public (Jabelle, 2013). Of more concern is the use of this drug as a means to get high in the entertainment circles in the society. The side effects of this drug in its excessive use are the risk of loss of short term memory and development of diseases of the nervous system (Souryal, 2010). Consequently, the proponents of its illegalization have proposed that this drug has long term consequences on the public and only regard its use under the prescription of a medical expert. Smoking marijuana as an ethical issue has both legal and moral consequences that come along with it. In the moral perspective, it is wrong since its abuse in the long term causes the user to suffer from diseases of the heart and the nervous system. In addition, the users of this drug are specific social groups that exist in this society. Therefore, using the drug will keep one close to their peers and isolate that person from the family members who regard this as a moral pervasion (Kleinman, 2000). From this perspective, if one chooses to use the drug, they are bound to bear some negative or positive consequences in their moral lives; they have either to sacrifice their family social life and health, or their social peer life. In the legal perspective, the law prohibits the use of marijuana and one is subject to a long life sentence if caught up in such an act, in the United States, the use of Marijuana is prohibited and its use is regarded to as a criminal offense ( Kleinman, 2000). The federal law in the United States has zero tolerance for possession, use or trafficking of Marijuana within the public. From this perspective, anyone who intends to use this substance has to be prepared for the legal consequences of such abuse. Analysis of Ethical issues in Smoking Marijuana The choice of one to either use or not use has some consequences and there is need to consider the issue with weight to evaluate which of the two paths would be right to follow. The gains of smoking include the pleasure of entertainment, reduced stress, increased appetite and cohesion within social circles. If one chooses not to use this drug, they have to forego all the benefits that come along with its use. On the other hand, using it will attract a legal reliability and one has to give up the social family life as such behaviors go against the moral standards of the society. On the hand, not using will allow one to be appreciated in the family social circles and one will remain free from the power of the law that disregards substance abuse within the public (Waller, 2005). In such a situation, there is need to evaluate, from different dimensions, whether smoking bhang is either right or wrong. The philosophical ethical models of are useful in determining the path to take in a situation of a dilemma. One of the models that have found favor in the philosophy of decision making is the use utilitarianism ethical model that has developed to encompass various dimensions of an ethical dilemma. As the name of this model points out, the correctness of wrongness of an action can be evaluated from the manner in which it can be utilized. In this case, utility refers to the happiness and the suffering that comes along with a particular decision path. From this point of view, the right course of action is one in which the subject is bound is expected to receive more happiness and reduce the suffering while the wrong course of action is associated with more suffering and less happiness (Waller, 2005). In brief, theories of this ethical model suggest that a person is inclined to choose a path that will let them increase their happiness and reduce their suffering. The question that arises here is how pleasure or happiness and suffering can be measured while making a decision. Bentham, one of the developers of this theory attempted to make an empirical measurement of the quantity of pleasure and suffering as a strategy of determining the right course of action. By evaluating the duration that a pleasure is bound to last, it is important to look at the long term and the short term consequences of an action. The direction that gives happiness in the long term is regarded as the best path in a dilemma. From the perspective of certainty, the subject evaluates whether the anticipated pleasure in guaranteed or it is just lose or win situation (Orend, 2000). The intensity of pleasure is a complex issue that has become a hard as the possibility of quantizing the amount of pleasure is quite difficult. It is possible to evaluate the best choice while considering the dilemma of smoking marijuana in states where this behavior is prohibited. Going by the word of Bentham, the duration of pleasure derived from smoking marijuana can be regarded as short term. If one chooses to smoke this substance, they are bound to get high and maintain relevant in their peer groups in the short term, but in the long term they are bound to risk a jail term and acquire diseases of the heart and nervous system. In this regard, the smoking ban will provide more suffering in the future of the subject and less pleasure. On the hand, a decision not to smoke bhang would protect the subject from heart diseases and they would enjoy freedom from the risk of being jailed. The long term effects of this course of action seem to be more satisfying than those of the alternative path (Wood, 2008). If the principle of Bentham is something to go by, then it would be recommendable not to engage in marijuana smoking. The certainty principle of Bentham’s model would be applicable in measuring the morality of smoking bhang. The certainty principle suggests that the right course of action is one in which the subject of a dilemma is guaranteed more pleasure and less suffering. Pacula (2003) guarantees that 50% of marijuana users are inclined to suffer from some form of illness be it mental or heart diseases and the rest will suffer from mild effects of the drug. The implication of this statistical survey is that every use of marijuana is guaranteed to suffer from either mild or severe side effects of this drug. On the other hand, opting not to smoke will guarantee the subject a healthy life free from the negative consequences of this drug. In this view, it is possible to state that the use of this drug is a wrong course of action that will at one time accelerate the suffering of a subject. John Stuart, another philosopher, brings a different dimension of the theory utilitarianism that is controversial to the one provided by Stentham. Stuart points out that it is quality rather than quantity, as proposed by Stentham that drives the utility of a specific course of action (Souryal, 2010). In defining the quality of the end consequence of an action, this author presumes that there are pleasures that are higher than others and intellect human beings are inclined to choose higher pleasures and drop those paths that provide lower pleasures. The temptation of smoking marijuana comes from the high pleasures that are associated with smoking. The feeling of being high after smoking can be regarded as a high pleasure that may drive a subject of dilemma to prefer smoking this drug. The idea of this philosopher seems to be realistic rather than the hedonist principle applied by earlier philosophers. In a nutshell, the utilitarianism principle provided by this author explains why many youths will chose to use marijuana in the society despite the risks associated with this abuse. The criticism of the utilitarianism emanates from its inability to account for the many situations when individuals have no full knowledge of the consequences that come along with the available paths (Kay, 2000). The theory of utilitarianism models the path of an action on the consequences of an action and attempts to measure the pleasure and harms that comes with these paths. In a case where an individual has little knowledge of the consequences of an action, then it would be impossible to apply this theory and the path that a person follows may be altered by this fact. For instance of a substance abuser has no knowledge on the health complications that will result from their behavior, they may consider the pleasure of being high and evading stress as the highest or as the superior pleasures in their situation of dilemma. Consequently, they will end upholding a choice to smoke as the best choice, a choice that would have been different if the consequences of the decision path were fully understood. Another school of thought was developed by the theorist who provided the deontological theory that applies in solution of dilemmas. The proposition of this theory is that people react to ethical dilemmas by the virtue of the moral obligation that they have to the rules that govern them. The morality of an action is determined by the adherence of the rules and laws that give people the duty to do what is right and what does not violate their obligations. The Kantianism theory of ethics states that the correctness of an action depends on the motive of a person, whether good or bad. In this regard, it is crucial to judge the decision of a person from their intention of taking of a particular path (Nagel, 2012). Hence, it is possible to judge from the go whether a particular person is right in their choice or wrong. For example, if a person lies to save another person from a bad phenomenon, then that person can be regarded as right though lying is a wrong action. In short, the deontological theory supposes that an individual should choose the path that fulfills his absolute obligation and on that does not bring harm to them or other people. From the Kantianism theory, the solution of an ethical dilemma depends on the ability of a person to identify their absolute obligation and strive to fulfill it as they make their choice. At this point, it is crucial to consider the implication of this theory on the ethical concerns of smoking marijuana. In this context, each citizen has an absolute obligation to abide to their legal obligations to the laws of their country. In states such as United States where there exists a zero tolerance law to marijuana abuse, a citizen who opts to smoke would be going against their duty to obey the laws of their country (Golub, 2005). Consequently, such an action would be regarded as absolutely wrong, and an action that has a wrong motive. Another way to look at this case is by evaluating the consequence of the smoking bhang to the subject, and the absolute rule that governs such a person. In the religious context, human beings have a moral obligation to avoid any form of behavior that is likely to bring harm to their health. One of the severe consequences of abusing marijuana is the ill health effects that come with in the long run and especially in long-term abuse. In this light, opting to smoke can be regarded as defying the duty of self-care that each individual has on their body, and hence a wrong action overall. The contemporary deontological theory borrows a lot from the Kantianism theory of determining wrong and right course of action in ethical situations. Kamn, one of the proponents of contemporary deontological intuition, states that while some pervasions of are allowable, others are unacceptable and unrealistic (Bowie, 2004). In his context of permissible harm, he perceives that although some wrongs may have good motives, they may be impermissible and unethical. For instance, it would be unrealistic to kill one person and save five other, for the simple reason than there it is absolutely wrong to kill as defined by the divine duty. On the other hand, it would be right not to engage emergency brakes for a truck driver who has ten passengers on board although failing to do so would kill a passenger crossing the road at that moment. In this view, the contemporary deontological principles disregard the fact the consequences of an action determine its correctness, as proposed in the utilitarianism theories. From this angle, smoking marijuana would be a wrong course of action as judged from the permissible harm principle. While abusing marijuana will help the user to reduce stress and gain physical and mental pleasure in the short term, in the long term the consequences may be so severe that the society might risk to lose a lot from the consequences of such a choice. If an abuser suffers health issues or even dies, the family of the people will lose lots of cash in treating the person and even more gap will be created if the person succumbs to the death. This can be regarded as impermissible harm to the people and hence such a choice would not be justifiable as a right action. As Kamn states, a choice that benefits one person and subjects other people to suffering is likely to be wrong and against the moral and legal duties that every person bears in a society (Mooney, 2011). In essence, choosing to avoid smoking bhang would be a better option and would fulfill the duty that each person bears to the society and to their own nation. The two theories seem to converge on the decision that a person in dilemma should use or not to use. The deontological and the utilitarianism theories prove that there exists natural pressure that drive a human being to prefer one choice other than the other depending on their priorities on the matter and the conditions they are subject to. The utilitarianism theories require that an individual has full understanding of the consequences of the dual paths and that they are able to measure the quality or quantity of the pleasure or suffering that each path has to offer (Orend, 2000). In the theories of deontological intuition, the individual in a dilemma requires to understand their moral obligation or duty that they are absolutely inclined to adhere to. From a critical point of view, the two theories seem to lead to the same answer but in different approaches. Evaluation of the moral and ethical issues that arise from smoking bhang proves that there is more pleasure and fulfillment of absolute duties when a drug user decides to decline the temptation to smoke bhang rather than the other alternative. This path will ensure that the subject gains a long term pleasure that is guaranteed and fulfills their legal, religious and moral duties that they are bound to obey. Conclusion In conclusion, there exists conflicting choices in deciding whether to adopt smoking marijuana or not. While Marijuana is known for its ill health effects, it is indisputable that research has proved its adequacy in neutralizing severe pain and in treatment of mild headaches within the field of medicine. An individual who decides to abuse this substance is likely to enjoy the advantages of this drug but will obviously suffer from the ill consequences of abusing the drug. The deontological and the utilitarianism theories are effective in determining the course of action in the ethical dilemma that exists in the abuse of alcohol. According to utilitarianism theories, it is necessary to measure the quality and the quantity of the pleasure and suffering that comes with smoking of marihuana. In this light, smoking marijuana will guarantee more suffering than pleasure in the long term and this implies that this is the wrong path to take. Secondly, the deontological theories suggest that the correctness of an action is determined by its ability to fulfill the absolute duties that each person has, either legal, divine or moral. For this theory, smoking bhang would be against the legal, moral and divines duties that every person is subject to. Lastly, this dilemma can be evaluated from the principle of permissible harm that allows that some harmful acts be regarded right from if their motives are right. Going by this principle, it is true to regard bhang abuse as an impermissible harm that would cause unnecessary harm to the society and the nation at large. From a critical point of view, both the utilitarianism and the deontological theories converged to the fact that abuse of alcohol would be a wrong course of action. References Bowie, R., (2004). Ethical Studies. New York: Nelson Thornes. Golub, L., (2005). The Cultural and subcultural Contexts of Marijuana Use at the Turn of the Twenty-First century. London: Haworth Press Jabelle, k., (2013). The advantages and Disadvantages of Marijuana Use. Retrieved from :< http://www.buydutchseeds.com/blog/the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-marijuana-use.html > Kay, D., (2000). Utilitarianism. Retrieved from :< http://webs.wofford.edu/kaycd /ethics/util.htm > Kleinman, M., (2000). Marijuana: Costs of abuse, costs of Control. New York: Greenwood Press. Mooney, L., (2011). Understanding social problems. London: Cengage Learning. Nagel, T., (2012). The Possibility of Altruism. Princeton University Press. Orend, B., (2000). War and International Justice: A Kantian Perspective. West Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press Pacula, R., (2003). Cannabis Use and Dependence: Public Health and Public Policy. Cambridge University Press. Sheng, C., (2004). A defense of utilitarianism. University Press of America. Slote, M., (2001). Satisficing Consequentialism". Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, Vol. 58 58: 140. Souryal, S., (2010). Ethics in the Criminal Justice: In search of the Truth. London: Elsevier. Waller, N., (2005). Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues. New York: Pearson Longman: 23. Wood, W., (2008). Kantian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Read More