Legalizing Marijuana

The argument around the legalization of marijuana presents varying views and opinions that cut across the political, social and economic divides within the community. In essence, these views show the complexities that surround legality and the illegality of the use of marijuana. In the last two decades, the political landscape has seemed to tilt more towards the legalization of marijuana, which is evidenced by the increasing number of states that have gradually legalized marijuana.

Pundits argue that with the changing scope of regulations in the United States, where states have gradually embraced the legalization of this substance, a renewed drive may be observable in a bid to push for the fully- fledged support of Marijuana use at the federal level (Leyton 75). On the contrary, opinions vary across scholarly divides on the need to sustain the ban on marijuana. The argument is that despite the changing views across the states on the need to repeal the current laws on Marijuana, the health-related implications remain the same. Nevertheless, these views may have certain biases based on the point of opinion that they embrace.

Over the years, there has been an apparent attempt to make comparisons between the legalization of tobacco and the illegality of marijuana. The argument made by scholars, in this case, is that tobacco has as much health effects as if there is marijuana (Leyton 76). Pundits also note that the use of other substances such as alcohol has equal adverse implications on the health of the users. The studies also reveal that while these substances are illegal, they could have as much adverse and extreme health-related outcomes on the individuals.

The assertion made in this context is that the illegality presented in the case of marijuana is a result of misplaced assumptions that marijuana has implications that are more adverse to health outcomes than all other abused substances. The reality that these studies present is that the decision to make a decree on the ban on marijuana is unbalanced and fails to consider the implications that other substances have on health outcomes. On the same note, it is impossible to make a decision that affects the society without undertaking conscious due diligence and differentiating between illegal and legal substances.

Pundits also present the concerns around the underlying failure to recognize the critical role that Marijuana plays within the medical circles (Leyton 75). According to varying research outcomes, there are numerous medicinal uses of marijuana that may have a significant implication on the process of improving health care within the social setting. The need to legalize the use of marijuana within a medical context would be critical towards improving the health outcomes within the social environment. The research reveals that the use of marijuana to deal with ailments such as cancer and Glaucoma would be important in the course of improving healthcare outcomes. The studies show that the illegalization of marijuana limits the use of this drug within the confines of healthcare provision.

The states that have gradually embraced the use of marijuana within the broader medical context have had notable improvements in the overall healthcare outcomes. The reality is that some of these medical outcomes presented using marijuana would be important towards future public health solutions especially when it comes to dealing with chronic ailments. Essentially, one would also argue that medical health care outcomes are subject to continuous research and design towards recurrent improvement (Pacula 20). To this end, marijuana may be an important discovery within the healthcare setting that would have critical overall implications on health care.

The other argument that stands out in the conversation is the moralistic argument made by individual scholars. The assertion made by such scholars is that the decision to use marijuana is a personal decision, which in fact is a choice. For this reason, the individual decision to use the drug should be viewed from a consequentialist point of view. The consequentialist point of view argues that the individual’s final decision to use marijuana depends on the possible outcomes or implications of using the substance. For instance, if the decision to use marijuana is based on recreational purposes, then the user may derive happiness from such use of the content. On the same note, the argument made by consequentialist theorists is that the person has the ultimate decision to determine what actions yield the most significant outcomes or happiness.

The consequentialist argument reveals that the debate around the legalization of marijuana is a moralistic argument, which must in essence focus on the realities of the implications of marijuana from an individual users’ point of view and the underlying right to make a decision that is not a result of coercion or due to legal obligation (Pacula 21). The underlying argument that stands out is that the individual user has as the freedom of choice to decide whether to use the drug. Perhaps, this also reflects on the argument from a religious point of view, which notes that human beings have a free will to decide on what they wish to embrace or to disregard. The free will reflects on the moralistic assumption made about the possible implications of coercion through the law.

The scholarly arguments made by pundits on the need to legalize marijuana from an economic point of view are quite compelling. According to the study, the marijuana market continues to thrive despite the reality that there is no economic value that anyone derives from the market especially in relation to taxation. The research reveals that there would be significant tax benefits derivable from the ability to present marijuana as a legal and marketable commodity especially from a medicinal point of view. The revenues from the sales and the position of the source for the marijuana would have a significant implication on the overall revenue scales within the country. The states that have been keen on embracing and legalizing marijuana seem to reap essential benefits from an economic point of view. The same may be replicable at the federal level an aspect that may imply the overall annual tax return in the country.

Pundits argue that when the government implements very high tax regimes on commodities such as alcohol and cigarettes, the outcome is often a constant rate of consumption in the market. The commodities then derive significant economic benefits through high rates of taxation. To this end, it is also possible to equate these high levels of revenue to the high consumption rates of marijuana in the underground markets (Cheng et al. 1590). The concern by economic researchers is that while the government focuses on implementing the ban on marijuana, there are businesspersons who continue to make significant levels of income from the illegal sale of marijuana (Cheng et al. 1590). In the end, this means that from a legal point of view, the government will never be able to tax marijuana as long as there is a lack of a statutory provision that legalizes the sale and use of the drug. The scholars reveal that in the immediate future, it may be impossible for the government to gain from the revenues accrued from marijuana as long as there is a failure to consider the legalization of the use.

The contrary opinions are equally broad and critical on the reasons that support the ban on marijuana. For instance, there is a broad spectrum of research that evidences the possible implications of marijuana use on the overall long-term well- being of the individual both health wise and socially (Choi et al. 10). The evidence suggests that at the end of the day, the individual may end up having varying negative implications, which manifest due to the long-term use of the substance. The scholarly works also reveal that users of marijuana stand to develop specific long-range dependencies that may include a higher affinity to embrace other harder drugs such as heroin (Canady 4).

The discourse also reveals that the use of marijuana leads to irrational and in some case illogical decisions, which may include acts of crime and delinquency. The research notes that the individuals that abuse marijuana tends to have a higher affinity for violence and crime, an issue that complicates their ability to obey the laws set out in a given society (Cavedon 6). On the same note, the argument on the ban of marijuana also suggests that often, the individuals involved the sale and transportation of the drug often have multiple criminal related activities, which complicate their business approaches.

Finally, there is a moral argument that also argues the use of any substance that would cause bodily harm to the users. The moralistic view is contrary to the evidence made on the free will to choose. In the end, the varying views may make sense depending on the school of thought and the scholarly viewpoint that each of the scholars embraces. The discourse may therefore not achieve a middle ground, especially where multiple scholarly views cut across the varying divides.

Works Cited

Canady, Valerie A. “Marijuana use by youth, schizophrenia genetic risk examined.” Mental Health Weekly, vol. 25, no. 34, 2015, pp. 3-5.

Cavedon, Matthew P. “Blazing Through a Federal Red Light: The Insurgent Regulatory War Legalizing Marijuana, 1994-2014.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2014, pp 5-9.

Cheng, Cheng, et al. “The Effect Of Legalizing Retail Marijuana On Housing Values: Evidence From Colorado.” Economic Inquiry, vol. 56, no. 3, 2018, pp. 1585-1601.

Choi, Namkee G., et al. “Older marijuana users’ marijuana risk perceptions: associations with marijuana use patterns and marijuana and other substance use disorders.” International Psychogeriatrics, 2017, pp. 1-12.

Leyton, Marco. “Legalizing marijuana.” Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience, vol. 41, no. 2, 2016, pp. 75-76.

Pacula, Rosalie. “Examining the Impact of Marijuana Legalization on Harms Associated with Marijuana Use.” vol. 6, no. 1, 2010, pp. 12-23.