The Marijuana Legalization Debate

The use of legalization of cannabis continues to become one of the most hotly debated topics in the United States. For a long time, Cannabis derivatives have been used for medical purposes such as in the creation of anesthesia. However, use in the mainstream society has remained heavily controlled. Due to its medical use, research has continued around the subject to understand the real hazardous nature of cannabis while others investigate the potential benefits of the drug. Like any contentious issue, the arguments for or against the legalization of marijuana are highly polarized. The results of research are therefore always skewed on any side to preserve the credibility of the party which the individual is supporting. As a result, there is a large pool of data indicating that both onions are valid. The question of whether the drugs should be legalized is therefore in most cases delegated to a case of individual morality. Sound judgment is however required in deciding the eventuality of such a case which bears important directives for the life of the Americans.
Traditionally, the use of most drugs was relegated to personal concern born of religious principles. In 1937, there was the introduction of a Marijuana Tax Act in the US. This law was intended to introduce taxes to anyone who was selling cannabis to curb the extensive misuse of drugs in the. However, structural failure or deliberate actions from the authorities resulted in no instituted frameworks for licensing of cannabis sale (Anaekwe 1).

As a result, cannabis use became illegal. This saw a drastic reduction in the US number of users, but it did not entirely diminish the drug consumptions. Between 1937 and today, numerous developments have occurred that can lead to the determination of whether marijuana is safe or not.
Health is usually the primary focus of discussions involving the legalization of the drug. Extensive health research shows that there could be substantial benefits of using cannabis on people with depression, schizophrenia, and epilepsy. This is not entirely a new observation since the drug has been used for medical cases from the distant past. Activists of the legalization of the cannabis use these results to campaign for its appreciation. However, on the other hand, it has been shown that the drug does cause strong dependency that results in psychological problems that can cause the same problems it is deemed to alleviate. For example, people who used marijuana are more prone to depression, anxiety, and hyperactivity (“Arguments For And Against Legalising Cannabis – Debating Europe”). They are also more prone to violent crimes which expose them numerous risks. The basic definition of a drug is that it is anything that alters the functioning of the body. It is, therefore, hypocritical to claim that cannabis does not have any effects on the body. It does, in fact, have numerous health risks that endanger the mental capability of an individual as well as their lungs.
These arguments always raise the question of the legality of other drugs such as alcohol and tobacco. It is speculated that these two drugs have more detrimental effects on health than cannabis could have. It is therefore deemed hypocritical to criminalize a product whose medical uses are known and the harmful are far less than those of other legal drugs (Leyton 75). However, the problem arises from the fact that the proponents of this school of thought concede to the fact that there are substantial negative impacts of using marijuana. The argument is therefore sustained by the severity of the destruction. Individuals who encourage the legalization of the drug argue that the use of alcohol that it’s less detrimental as other drugs. However, since the validity of this point begins with the admission that marijuana is harmful in some way to the use, it is only sanctioned with reference to the degree with which it harms the use. Even if there are other drugs that are more harmful to the use, it would, therefore, seem like the real task of the legislature is to decommission the use of these excessively toxic drugs. This is because the function of the government is to protect the life of individuals. This cannot be done through legalization of risk bearing endeavors. In any case, when a government legalizes the use of such substances, the effects are detrimental to its economy.
There is a very highly likelihood of developing addiction with the use of such drugs. Dependency means that the meaning of life for such an individual shifts from daily routine to satisfying the need for this drug. First of all, such individuals are neither free to work nor participate in social responsibilities(Anaekwe 1). There are extreme withdrawal challenges associated with the use of cannabis. Users become irritable and anxious if they cannot access daily doses and are incapable of handling productive daily activities. With the rise of drug-related violence in families, it becomes difficult to sanction the use of yet another drug. The potential economic loss that will be associated with treating these individuals and mitigation of the drug effects on third parties is immeasurable. However, there is a figure on the other side. It is estimated that the introduction of marijuana would save the government up to 18nillion annually. This figure includes the amount that is used to hunt down the users, arrest and maintain them in prison systems and the resources used in their prosecution. It also involves the money that will be generated from the taxation of the main operations in the drug trade. These resources are likely to be consumed back into the healthcare system. Despite the lucrativeness of the trade, the end balance sheet for the trade is likely to be negative. Eventually, the cost of rehabilitating users may grossly exceed that which is gained from the commercialization of the product.
This leads to the argument on freedom. Individuals claim that the government has not moral authority to dictate on which activities the citizen may engage in for leisure. It is noted that as long as the pot is smoked by adults older than 21, there is enough understanding of the risk engaged and there is no proof of damage to the third party. The rights to free will they’re demands that the government limits its activity in the individual life’s choices. The challenge with this is that allowing increased consumption of a drug seems to reduce the individual’s free will. An increase in drug dependence does not make an individual freer but more dependent on others. These ideologies also seem to suggest that that because an individual is free to do whatever they may with their bodies, then ultimately a lawless state is better than one that is properly governed. Marijuana is a gateway to harder drug (Sherani et al. A140)s. Research has shown that youths who smoke cannabis are 60% more likely to consume a much harder drug. The drug impairs one’s judgment and leads to the possibility of trying as even more risk endeavors. The proponents of marijuana are therefore likely to be calling for the legalization of harder stuff because ‘it is immoral for the government to regulate individual pleasure activities.’ This is undoubtedly very unsustainable (Sherani et al. A140). If the trend of legalizing any pleasurable endeavors were embraced, social structures would soon crumble into narcissistic trends where every individual tries to ratify what they think is beneficial to them.
Therefore despite the facts that may provide to support legalization of marijuana, it remains to be a costly venture that should be restricted to medical use. This may seem like an outdated stance considering the local trends in the society. In the US, 26 states together with the District of Columbia have legislated some form of law that is geared towards the legalization of marijuana. The majority of these states have done so for medicinal purposes. However, some states have gone a notch even higher. The District of Columbia and seven other states such as California, Massachusetts, and Nevada have recently legalized the recreational use of marijuana. Most of these states have a similar law allowing the farming of marijuana in one’s farm up to a maxim of a specific number of plants. It also dictates that one is allowed to possess approximately one ounce of marijuana for individual consumption. The legalization of the process, therefore, establishes the licensing method for the sale of the product.
This system is argued to have potential benefits of reducing the lucrativeness of drug trade. This would then supposedly remove the drug cartels. It will also introduce stronger regulatory measures so that there is not smoking in the dark and therefore enable more moderation in consumption (“ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA – Legalize Marijuana, Legal Weed, Marijuana Facts”). However, this is not entirely accurate. The use of Marijuana would first of all extend to minority communities who are not allowed to take alcohol. Drug peddler will not stop simply because the drug is legal, they will continue to lure minority populations who are more willing to purchase the product from them (Sherani et al. A140). They will also increase their sales with more harmful products. This may be the reason why the cannabis’ toxicity has been rising steadily. Traditionally, cannabis contained about 1% of the active ingredient. Today the active ingredient is more than 30% (“ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA – Legalize Marijuana, Legal Weed, Marijuana Facts”). This raises the addiction rates. It also means that it is not possible to use any valid measures for the future mitigation processes as it is unclear how destructive the product will be.
Apart from an increase in sales to the minors, drug use would also enhance the number of citizens who consumes the drugs. This is because the ease of accessibility would make it the desirable option for running aware from various life challenges. There is not the appropriate attitude to take as a nation. A sober society is more likely to be productive in both economic and psychosocial activities. This is because apart from the people have more time to dedicate to work and are more aligned to make sound decisions. Besides, the resources that could have been used in other ventures are freed up and used in essential factors.

Works Cited
Anaekwe, Ogonna. “Marijuana And Money: Legalizing The One To Make More Of The Other”. SSRN Electronic Journal n. pag. Web.
“Arguments For And Against Legalising Cannabis – Debating Europe”. Debating Europe. N.p., 2016. Web. 7 Dec. 2016.
“ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA – Legalize Marijuana, Legal Weed, Marijuana Facts”. Legalize Marijuana, Legal Weed, Marijuana Facts. N.p., 2016. Web. 7 Dec. 2016.
Leyton, Marco. “Legalizing Marijuana”. Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience 41.2 (2016): 75-76. Web.
Sherani, Khalid et al. “Legalizing Marijuana: What More To Expect!”. Chest 149.4 (2016): A140. Web.