Why Legalizing Marijuana Poses Serious Health Risks
This paper argues against the legalization of marijuana by examining its documented health risks and the availability of safer pharmaceutical alternatives. Drawing on medical research and policy statements, the paper evaluates marijuana's limited medicinal value, its carcinogenic and immunosuppressive properties, its association with psychotic symptoms in schizophrenic patients, and the particular dangers it poses to adolescent users. The author contends that while controlling illegal marijuana use carries financial and administrative costs, these concerns are outweighed by the drug's potential to cause serious long-term harm. The existence of FDA-approved synthetic alternatives such as Marinol further undermines the case for legalizing crude smoked marijuana.
- Introduction: Overview of marijuana debate and paper thesis
- Medicinal Value: Pros and Cons: Therapeutic claims weighed against carcinogenic and psychiatric risks
- Effects on the Immune System: Laboratory findings on marijuana's immunosuppressive properties
- Impact on Adolescents: Risks of adolescent access, cognitive harm, and gateway drug concerns
- Conclusion: Thesis restated with FDA and cancer risk specifics
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper opens and closes with the same thesis statement, creating a tight rhetorical frame that reinforces its central argument about cognitive impairment, addiction, and health risk.
- It acknowledges the opposing view — that marijuana has medicinal value and that enforcement is costly — before systematically dismantling each claim with cited evidence, which strengthens its credibility.
- The use of named expert voices (Dr. Nora Volkow, Dr. Richard Russell) alongside peer-reviewed journal citations gives the argument both authority and accessibility.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the technique of concession and refutation: it grants that marijuana has some medicinal uses and that enforcement is burdensome, then argues that these concessions are outweighed by documented harms. This approach — acknowledging a counterargument before dismantling it — is a foundational move in persuasive academic writing and prevents the paper from appearing one-sided.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized into five sections. The introduction frames the controversy and states the thesis. The medicinal value section weighs therapeutic claims against carcinogenic evidence and the availability of safer synthetic drugs. The immune system section summarizes laboratory and animal findings. The adolescent impact section draws on pediatric policy and neurodevelopmental research. The conclusion restates the thesis with added specificity, referencing FDA scheduling and the long-term cancer risk.
Introduction
Any drug that alters brain chemistry, impairs cognitive functions, and creates an addictive personality cannot be recommended as safe. While there is no suppressing the fact that controlling illegal marijuana use continues to be a financial and administrative bottleneck, those concerns are overridden by the potential harmful health consequences of legalizing marijuana.
Marijuana has been in use for thousands of years for its medicinal properties. With the development of new synthetic drugs, there was a gradual decline in its use from the early part of the 20th century. Today, however, though illegal at the federal level, it continues to be a widely used drug in the United States for both recreational and medicinal purposes. In the year 2000 alone there were more than 2.4 million new users of marijuana, and the drug is supposedly consumed by more than 76% of all drug users (NCADI). The comparatively safer and proven remedial properties of modern synthetic drugs have largely sidelined the medical use of marijuana. Yet we are still faced with the ongoing controversy over legalizing marijuana for its claimed medicinal values. While advocates for legalization staunchly endorse its medicinal value and point to the high policing costs involved in controlling illegal trafficking of the drug, anti-marijuana groups continue to express concern about the drug's addictive and debilitating nature. The existing disparity of opinions on this issue requires detailed examination to arrive at a well-reasoned position.
Medicinal Value: Pros and Cons
There is no denying that marijuana is useful as an appetite stimulant, as an anti-emetic for post-chemotherapy patients, and for patients suffering from glaucoma due to its intraocular pressure-reducing properties. However, many pharmacological products are effective for these same conditions without the inherent risk of addiction and without exposing patients to potential health hazards. The FDA has even approved a synthetic form of THC named Marinol specifically for cancer patients in recovery, which does not carry the risks associated with smoking crude marijuana (DEA).
Smoked marijuana contains more than 400 chemical substances, of which approximately 60 are clearly identified as carcinogenic. THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) is the main psychoactive ingredient in the drug, responsible for the sense of relaxation and the euphoric feeling. Since smoking tobacco is a known and accepted causative agent for lung and throat cancers, it follows logically that marijuana — which shares most of the carcinogens present in tobacco — is also carcinogenic (David Evans). Pro-marijuana advocates point to the lack of conclusive evidence directly linking marijuana to lung and throat cancer; however, this is a flawed argument. The absence of conclusive evidence is attributable to the illegal nature of the drug and the consequent difficulties in obtaining research subjects, not to any harmlessness of the drug itself. The lessons from the past should caution against a lenient attitude toward marijuana. As Dr. Richard Russell, a respiratory specialist from the British Lung Foundation, warns: "What we really want to avoid is the situation we had in the 1930s, '40s and '50s with cigarettes, where doctors were recommending tobacco as being good for you" (Alan Freeman).
Studies conducted in the Netherlands have found a positive relationship between smoking cannabis and the early onset of psychotic symptoms among people with schizophrenia. A study observing 133 patients found that those who had a habit of smoking cannabis were, on average, 6.9 years younger at the onset of their first psychotic symptoms (Natalie et al.). This result confirms earlier research, which also showed a worsening of psychotic symptoms in schizophrenic patients following marijuana use (DA Treffert).
Effects on the Immune System
The immune system is our primary defense against opportunistic infections. Although direct human studies have yet to provide clear-cut evidence of serious immune compromise, animal and laboratory tests strongly suggest immunosuppressive properties in marijuana. Studies conducted in controlled laboratory environments have shown that cannabis significantly affects the response of T cells and macrophages. There is clear evidence that alveolar macrophages are directly affected by marijuana smoke, though this effect is attributed to components other than THC. Studies examining the effect of cannabis on HIV-infected individuals have produced mixed results. Nevertheless, laboratory and animal tests have consistently confirmed that marijuana smoke is both mutagenic and carcinogenic, which provides sufficient reason to avoid it (Wayne Hall).
Conclusion
Any drug that alters brain chemistry, impairs cognitive functions, and creates an addictive personality cannot be recommended as safe, even in medicinal contexts. First, it would be a grave mistake to circumvent the standard FDA approval process — under which marijuana is classified as a Schedule I drug — and legalize it by citing medicinal benefits. Second, even for the medical conditions in which marijuana is supposedly effective, comparatively safer and non-addictive synthetic alternatives exist. With a potential risk for lung, throat, and thoracic cancers, and with proven negative effects in patients with schizophrenia, marijuana definitively poses a long-term health hazard. While controlling illegal marijuana use undeniably carries financial and administrative costs, those costs are overridden by the harmful health consequences that legalization would bring.
References
Edward A. Jacobs, "Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth," PEDIATRICS Vol. 113 No. 6, June 2004, pp. 1825–1826.
Wayne Hall, Louisa Degenhardt, and Michael Lynskey, "The Health and Psychological Effects of Cannabis Use," Chapter 5, Monograph Series No. 44, 2nd Edition.
Natalie D. Veen et al., "Cannabis Use and Age at Onset of Schizophrenia," American Journal of Psychiatry 161:501–506, March 2004.
DA Treffert, "Marijuana Use in Schizophrenia: A Clear Hazard," American Journal of Psychiatry 1978; 135:1213–1215.
NCADI, "Marijuana."
Education News, "Marijuana Use Negatively Impacts Teen Learning and Academic Success, Experts Say."
Alan Freeman, "Researchers Warn Marijuana is Worse than Tobacco for Your Lungs and is Linked to Schizophrenia."
DEA, "Exposing the Myth of Smoked Medical Marijuana — Marijuana: The Facts."
David Evans, "Don't Legalize Medical Use of Marijuana."
Already a member? Log in
Unlock the rest of this paper
135,000+ research papers · AI writing tools · Plagiarism & AI detection
7-Day Pass
Does not renew
Get 7-Day PassMonthly
Renews at $12.99/month until canceled
Start MonthlyAnnual
Renews at $99/year until canceled
Start Annual- Unlimited AI writing tools
- Plagiarism and AI text detection tool
Plan details
Unlimited AI writing tools are for individual, non-automated use and are subject to our Terms of Service and abuse-prevention measures.
TextChecker scans: 3 during the 7-Day Pass, or 5 per month with Monthly and Annual.
Prices exclude applicable tax.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.