The debate over marijuana legalization: public health and civil rights

Legalizing Marijuana

Recent ballot initiatives in states like California and Oregon asking for the decriminalization of marijuana use reveals a growing public acceptance of marijuana. The perception that marijuana is not dangerous has made drug enforcement even more difficult. Indeed, the debate over marijuana goes beyond health concerns, and touches issues such as crime and privacy as well.

This paper examines the debate to legalize marijuana. The first part of the paper examines the arguments of the pro-marijuana side, focusing on those who argue that the drug can have medicinal purposes. The next part then examines the potential dangers of legalized marijuana use, both to the individual and to public health in general. In the conclusion, the paper argues that marijuana use is not a "victimless" crime. The potential dangers that marijuana present to individual and public health are best upheld by keeping marijuana illegal.

Pro-legalization arguments

Prohibitions against the legalized use of marijuana are thus seen as a state's infringement on a person's privacy. For many people, there is little distinction between marijuana use and smoking cigarettes or consuming alcohol. However, even though marijuana use is a "victimless" crime, citizens who choose to exercise their individual civil rights to smoke marijuana are harassed, arrested and jailed. These drug policies, charge critics, are overly punitive. Arresting individual users who smoke marijuana in the privacy of their homes are ultimately ineffective in the government's "war against drugs."

For marijuana activists, the government's "war against drugs" is nothing more than a targeting of middle-class citizens who are an otherwise law-abiding segment of the population. Unlike drug cartels and big-time drug dealers, individual marijuana users do not profit from distributing drugs. The marijuana laws thus only serve to ruin the lives and careers of ordinary Americans, without addressing the production side of the drug business (Stroup 57).

Second, in place of punitive arrest policies, marijuana activists propose a system recognizing the legal, responsible use of marijuana. This involves several important components. For example, marijuana consumption should be allowed only for adults. As in alcohol, people under the influence of marijuana should not be allowed to drive. Users should be trusted to know their limits and not consume marijuana to the point of addiction. They should also always remember to respect the rights of others, especially while under the drug's influence (Stroup 59-60).

Supporters of this "responsible use" policy believe that this system addresses many of the issues raised against legalization without trampling on the civil rights and privacy of competent, law-abiding adults who choose to consume marijuana.

The final and most powerful argument for legalization concerns the potential of marijuana as a medicinal drug. As with other pharmacological agent, marijuana can alter body chemistry. Those who argue for legalization maintain that marijuana's pharmacological properties make it a valid form of treatment for a host of illnesses. People suffering from glaucoma, for example, state that smoking marijuana alleviates the pressure in the eyeball that leads to damages in the optic nerve. Because of this potential, ophthalmologists were legally allowed to prescribe marijuana for glaucoma until 1991, when new glaucoma drugs were introduced. However, because many of these new drugs have side effects, some ophthalmologists believe that marijuana should be allowed, at least to augment other glaucoma treatment methods ("Marijuana as a Medicine").

For cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, marijuana also proves valuable in reducing nausea. Cancer sufferers also report that marijuana indirectly aids in their recovery, by lifting the sense of hopelessness and helplessness that many feel in the face of an overwhelming disease ("Marijuana as a Medicine")..

Conclusion

While calls for a strictly controlled marijuana treatment program for the terminally ill has merit, the growth in drug use, particularly among young people, should be a great cause of social concern. Arguments that drug is "victimless" fail to hold water considering the scientific evident regarding how drugs such as marijuana can cause serious physical and mental injuries. A look at the social effects of marijuana use also belies the notion that drug use is victimless. If drug use were decriminalized, the cost of ensuring the substance's purity, regulating its use from minors and treating the health costs would all be shouldered by taxpayers (Gottfried 46).

Furthermore, there is also the danger that the long-term cumulative effects of marijuana use are not readily apparent. Like the effects of environmental crimes, the second-hand effects of so-called victimless crimes may be slow and so diffused that many victims do not even realize they have been harmed until years later.

Proponents of legalized marijuana use argue that individuals should be allowed to decide the limits of their drug consumption, and that laws could be set in place to restrict the sale of marijuana to adults. However, given the wide instances of underage drinking and smoking, it is unlikely that such sales restrictions could be enforced. Furthermore, such restrictions would be moot for teenagers who already know where to purchase marijuana.

Given these arguments, this paper believes that marijuana should remain illegal. While the drug could provide a measure of relief to people who are ill, the drug's capacity for physiological harm is well documented. The growing acceptance of recreational marijuana use, particularly among young people, should thus be a continued concern. Far from being a victimless crime, marijuana use has serious repercussions for both individual users and for the public in general.