essay on decriminalization of marijuana

Decriminalization of Marijuana Essay

Introduction.

On earth, there are different drugs that perform different functions. These drugs fall into diverse classes. There are drugs that people use to treat diseases while, there are still other drugs used by people to induce pleasure in the body. If an individual uses the later drugs in large amounts, addiction occurs.

Addiction has numerous disadvantages in that; an addicted person can protest rally ahead and do criminal activities due to drug influence. One of these drugs is Marijuana extracted from the leaves of a plant known as cannabis. People who normally take this kind of drug smoke these leaves or sometimes eat them while raw. However, since Marijuana is an intoxicant drug with many side effects especially to human health, health ministries around the world prohibit its use. Marijuana is therefore an illicit drug-narcotic.

Nevertheless, sometimes cannabis leaves act as pain relievers. In fact, medical experiments and research indicate that, marijuana minimizes body pains, balances intraocular strains and discourages muscle cramps. The issue of criminalizing or decriminalizing marijuana has since become a public debate.

Enacted in American state laws is a law that permits the use of marijuana for medical purposes. The legislature has become a dysfunctional organ in enacting a just law to curtail over-criminalization resulting from marijuana use. The paper will examine decriminalization of marijuana as the best way to deal with criminal activities resulting from marijuana abuse. Nevertheless, marijuana can act as a curative drug. (Darryl, Para. 1-3).

Controversies in Decriminalization of Marijuana

Considering these benefits and the negative effects of marijuana, the repercussions seem to outweigh these benefits. This is because; disproportionate abuses of marijuana lead to complex health complications that sometimes cause death or consume a lot of money.

This made many countries all over the world to seek a common solution over marijuana cultivation, possession and transportation. For example, in United States of America, eleven states passed a common law decriminalizing marijuana. The decriminalization of marijuana resulted due to public outcry over the effects of marijuana.

Nevertheless, even with the creation of laws curbing marijuana abuse, the effects of marijuana on people’s health remain tall. On the other hand, making marijuana illegal did not change anything. Instead, its criminalization led to other pathetic conditions including side effects.

According to research done by drug and antinarcotics agencies, drug offenders felt stigmatization from community members. Many of them could not secure even a job to cater for their lives and as a result, they would involve in criminal activities as revenge to the community and state.

Moreover, drug offenders lack confidence in the judicial system. This is because; the capital punishment resulting from their judicial sentencing participates in changing their attitude. With these warring themes, a debate arose as to whether marijuana should be decriminalized or not. There are those who fully supported criminalization of marijuana while some campaigned for its decriminalization. (Gieringer, pp.12-14).

On the other hand, those campaigning for marijuana decriminalization did so citing its disadvantages. Among the disadvantages include the saving of money and time for other businesses, promotion of the judicial justice as the centre for justice and not punishment by allowing drug offenders to pay fine instead of capital punishment, and finally, decriminalization of marijuana will provide offenders with a chance to search for opportunities without fear of past criminal records.

For example, in 2003, Massachusetts reformed marijuana laws, which recognized possession of marijuana as a crime and instead called it a civil delinquency. Any offender found in possession of marijuana, subsequently had to pay a fine of US$ 100. Though many legislators and societal members thought it would ignite marijuana possession, it actually reduced cases arising from marijuana possession. For a period now, decriminalization of marijuana has been a hot debate topic all over the world. (Home Office Drug Policy, Para 1-9).

Supreme Court as the best Branch of Government to Tackle Decriminalization of Marijuana

The Supreme Court is the best government branch to deal with decriminalization of marijuana. This is because; in some states, there can be a high number of people possessing marijuana. In addition to this, medics use marijuana for medicinal purposes. It is therefore important to enact laws that favor both sides but under one vital condition. Criminalization of marijuana depends heavily on the amount one posses. If an individual possess large ounces of marijuana, the state should regard this as a criminal offense.

For example, in 1972, the then President Nixon formed the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse to come out with a solution to those people who will be found possessing marijuana. Interestingly, the commission came up with a recommendation, which decriminalized possession of large amounts of marijuana. (Khoo, Para. 1-7).

For example, decriminalization of marijuana being a contentious issue, led to some people going to court to change the enacted law, which criminalized marijuana possession. Previously, Congress had enacted into law Schedule I of Drug Abuse Act, allowing only doctors to use marijuana for treating complex ailments.

The state law allows doctors to prescribe marijuana and use it if certain medical conditions require so. Nevertheless, the judicial system continued to arrest doctors and persons using marijuana basing their claim in Oakland rulings. Up to this far, both state and judiciary had begun antagonizing wars.

It was then the role of the Supreme Court to breach the two sides and ensure proper legislation accepted by all Americans and common in all government branches. Moreover, any federal government action must comply with the American justice system. This is the reason as to why punitive measures does exist only to those possess marijuana in large amounts. (Woo, Para. 1-14).

The Role of Media, Lobbyist, and Special Interests Play in Convincing the American Public to Support Decriminalization of Marijuana

Convincing the entire American society to support marijuana decriminalization is a matter not so light. However, with lobbyists, the media and special interest groups, decriminalization of marijuana is something achievable. For example, many media companies continue to publish articles on the dangers of using marijuana without looking on its positive impact in human health. Newspapers reckon marijuana dangers with confusion and abusers behaving like buffoons on stage.

The British independent newspaper has campaigned for years the decriminalization of marijuana, even when being aware that, smoking or eating marijuana causes psychosis. Thus, media propaganda can determine people’s perceptions of marijuana. Screenplays from sensational actors continue to dominate media advertisements praising or ridiculing the decriminalization of marijuana. (Morgan, Para. 2-23).

On the other hand, American lobbyists condemn business personalities of being the biggest stakeholders in trading marijuana. These wealthy businesspersons through their unscrupulous and unethical mean organize marijuana trafficking all over the world. The truth of the matter is that, marijuana generates more revenue than any other business commodities.

For example, the American public condemned CNBC for doing marijuana promotions under television broadcasts aimed at making more sales. Clearly, this is pure decriminalization of marijuana because; the benefits gained by these media companies resemble those gained by individual abusers. Nevertheless, the media has heavily failed to choose between merchandising marijuana benefits and disseminating the public on the real dangers that marijuana pose to their health. (Kincaid, Para. 1-13).

States that have made Marijuana Legal

In United States of America, federal laws criminalize marijuana. However, some states have gone further field to decriminalize its use. Only non-medical marijuana falls in this class. In order to decriminalize marijuana effectively, these states conduct drug education, fine offenders less civil charges, have less punitive measures to drug offenders and in others, possession of marijuana is not an overriding criminal offense.

For example, Alaska State removed all fines and reduced long jail terms for an offender possessing less than a kilogram of marijuana wile in Arkansas, the state does not arrest offenders but only do counseling, or fine an individual. Sometimes the penalty accompanies some genus of community servicing.

California is also one of those states that have decriminalized marijuana. An offender possessing less than one ounce of marijuana meets a fine of $100. On the other hand, stricter punitive measures fall on offenders who have large amounts of marijuana or posse it under learning environments.

In addition to this, the state enacted a bill targeting more taxation from cannabis farmers and salespersons. Interestingly, more revenue generated at the same time prison spending went down. Like in California, Hawaii and Colorado states have similar marijuana decriminalization measures. (Suzanne, Para. 1-13).

In Kansas and Illinois, marijuana is not a highly contentious issue. However, possession of large amounts of marijuana can lead to a fine but not other punishments like imprisonment. On the other hand, the situation is not the same for offenders from Massachusetts. Since decriminalization of marijuana had become one of the hottest debates, voters decided to vote whether to decriminalize it or not.

A big percentage of voters chose to decriminalize marijuana but only under the same conditions like those of California. Other states, which have so far decriminalized marijuana, include Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Washington. (Matt, Para. 1-13).

The pros of making Marijuana legal

Some people argue that decriminalization of marijuana should only happen where a patient is in dire need of marijuana as a curative drug. For example, in United States of America, Presidential advisor Hodding did argue and advocate for decriminalization of marijuana. His arguments centered on the war on drugs where offenders and state law enforcing agencies held a tug of war so humiliating.

According to Hodding Carter II, the decriminalization of marijuana is a big step towards socialization. Furthermore, since marijuana is one of the best revenue-generating products, its legalization create corruption between offenders and law enforcers. In addition to this, medics do argue that marijuana is less addictive than other intoxicating drugs like cocaine and bhang.

Besides, medics use marijuana for medicinal purposes like treating asthma, chronic pains and rouse an appetite. (Roth, Para.1-3). Therefore, if marijuana becomes decriminalized, there is a greater possibility of crimes reducing drastically. Moreover, drug trafficking will be a forgotten case since every person will now be in a position to possess at least a universally accepted amount of marijuana.

Another advantage of decriminalizing marijuana is that, the federal spending in prisons and overcrowding will reduce while in judicial courts, the backlog of cases will be minimal and police officers will find easy time to deal with other crimes. Consequently, police briberies will also be minimal and on the other hand, drug trafficking will quell. (Amanda, Para. 1-13).

The Cons of Making Marijuana Legal

Arresting marijuana offenders and taking them to court is an exercise in futility. Many of these marijuana offenders are addicts who cannot do without marijuana. The federal state ends up using so much money generated from taxing citizens only to feed marijuana offenders languishing in jail.

In American courts, cases are many leading to swamping and slow justice delivery. (Nadelmann, Para. 1-11).Indeed, marijuana affects the general health of its abusers. Nevertheless, the same marijuana can also treat diseases like chronic cancer, fibromyaglia and help in maintaining weights of AIDS patients. (Ermer, para.1).

The History of Marijuana

Indians first used marijuana or cannabis for psychoactive purposes. In some occasions, the Assyrian used it for religious purposes. This was around third B.C. in fact, historical writers claim that, marijuana was also used by the Jews and Christians to perform their religious functions.

Nevertheless, it is archeologists though their research who discovered the pharmacological importance of marijuana. Later on, many countries classified marijuana as an intoxicant. (Walton, p.6). For example, in 1937, United States Congress passed Marijuana Tax Act criminalizing the possession, cultivation and transportation of marijuana.

Consequently, hot debates assumed center stages and on the other hand, academic and continued to develop theories explaining arguing for or against the criminalization of marijuana. Different lobbyists and journalists cited the chemical nature and high revenue generated from marijuana sales as the forces behind its criminalization. Pharmaceutical companies seeing the danger ahead started a war to illegalize marijuana so that they do not loose market for their manufactured drugs.

On the other hand, since marijuana generated excess revenue, many Americans criticized and termed it an unscrupulous social and economic mean. Nevertheless, the criminalization of marijuana was due to racial discrimination. This is because; white Americans believed that immigrants from Africa and Mexico had a culture of abusing drugs and especially marijuana. (Hong-En, pp. 414-422).

The Age Group Prone to Marijuana Usage

People at youthful stages are highly prone to use marijuana. Astonishingly, young American children at eighth to twelfth do use marijuana according to the study carries out by the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. For youths aged 18 years and older, the number marijuana users were twice that of young Americans under 12 years of age. (Green, Ritter, pp. 41-47).

Under this survey report, 55 percent of interviewed marijuana users admitted to have been under marijuana influence even when they were twelve years old. In addition to this, sex also seems to matter so much. The number of females above 18 years old, using marijuana is half that of male counterparts.

Youths at senior high school level, are the most affected by marijuana use. Interestingly, the number of marijuana users for persons aged between 13 and 17 years continue to increase alarmingly. (Drew, Para. 1-18). The graphs below represent the number of persons aged 18 years and over using marijuana.

(National Survey on Drug Use and Health Report, p.1)

The Effects of Long-term Usage

Many people associate marijuana with serious health problems. For example, smoking marijuana can lead to health problems like cancer and chest pains. Marijuana addicts are twice likely to have lung cancer than any other drug addicts. (Franjo, pp. 135-149). Nevertheless, small amounts of marijuana can reduce chances of catching neck and sometimes, treating breast cancer. Excessive use of marijuana can lead to depression, psychosis-schizophrenia and nervousness.

Though in the past, medics have associated marijuana to be the basis of stroke, recent surveys indicate dismiss this claim. Under high dosage of marijuana use, is when there is likelihood that it will it cause mental problems. However, there is some research going on to prove whether marijuana can cause heart diseases and neurological disorders. (Gonzalez, pp. 349-360).

The Effects on Jails due to Marijuana Arrest

Indeed, if police continually arrest marijuana users,there will be overcrowding in jails. These people are addicts and containing them in jail will be an added task to prison warders. Furthermore, since these people are addicts, they will always try every mean possible to have marijuana and use it while still in jail. Depressed marijuana users can even undergo stress and eventually die in jail.

In conclusion, marijuana has disadvantages and advantages. To some extent it can help in treating some diseases while, excessive us of marijuana will lead to addiction. This addiction goes hand in hand with depressions, anxiety and nervousness. Parents should therefore watch their siblings carefully rest they engage in marijuana use. Overall, United States Congress should enact legislations leading to decriminalization of marijuana.

Works Cited

Amanda, B. Legalizing the Dream, Making Marijuana Legal. 2004. Web.

Darryl, B. Democracy and Decriminalization . 2006. Washington & Lee Legal Studies. Web.

Drew, E. Facts about Marijuana Use. 2010. Web.

Ermer, J. Legalizing Marijuana: Trying to Outweigh the Pros with the Cons. 2007. Web.

Franjo, G. Harm Reduction Associated with Inhalation and Oral Administration of Cannabis and THC. Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics, 2001, 1 (3-4): 133–152.

Gieringer, D. H. The Origin of Cannabis Prohibition in California . 2006. Web.

Gonzalez, R. Acute and Non-Acute Effects of Cannabis on Brain Functioning and Neuropsychological Performance. Neuropsychology Review , 2007, 17 (3): 349–360.

Green, B., Ritter, C. Marijuana use and depression. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 2000, 41, 41–47.

Home office Drug Policy. Cannabis. 2009. Web.

Hong-En, Jiang (2006). A new insight into Cannabis sativa (Cannabaceae) utilization from 2500- year-old Yanghai tombs, Xinjiang, China. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 108 (3): 414–422.

Khoo, L. Up in smoke? Canada’s marijuana law and the debate over decriminalization CBC News Online. 2004. Web.

Kincaid, C. George Soros and the Dope Lobby. Accuracy in Media. 2007. Web.

Matt, V. Judge rules against Alaska marijuana law The Associated Press. 2006. Web.

Morgan, S. CNBC’s Marijuana, Inc: Propaganda, Pot Porn, or Both? 2009. Web.

Nadelmann, E. Make Marijuana Legal . CBS News. 2009. Web.

National Survey on Drug Use and Health Report. Age at First Use of Marijuana and Past Year Serious Mental Illness. 2005. Web.

Roth, R. Medical Marijuana. 2005. Web.

Suzanne, La Barre. Legal Limbo for Pot Users? Berkeley Daily Planet . 2006. Web.

Walton, R. Marijuana, America’s New Drug Problem. J. B. Lippincott. 1938. Print.

Woo, S. California Legislature Sees Benefit in Legalizing Pot . Wall Street Journal. 2009. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 19). Decriminalization of Marijuana. https://ivypanda.com/essays/decriminalization-of-marijuana/

"Decriminalization of Marijuana." IvyPanda , 19 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/decriminalization-of-marijuana/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Decriminalization of Marijuana'. 19 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Decriminalization of Marijuana." February 19, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/decriminalization-of-marijuana/.

1. IvyPanda . "Decriminalization of Marijuana." February 19, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/decriminalization-of-marijuana/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Decriminalization of Marijuana." February 19, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/decriminalization-of-marijuana/.

• The Decriminalization of Marijuana
• The Arguments For and Against Marijuana Decriminalization
• Should Marijuana Drugs Be Decriminalized?
• Should Drugs Be Decriminalized in Canada?
• Legalization vs. Criminalization
• Declaiming Drugs Decriminalization
• Decriminalization of Drugs: Affirmative Side
• Marijuana Legalization: Chronic Seizure Treatment
• Marijuana Legalization and Issues to Consider
• Narcotic Drugs Use and Legalization in the UAE
• Health Care – Operation & Management in Canada, England and USA
• Democracy in the Middle East
• Healthcare as a Basic Right of Americans
• Public Policy: Social, Economic, and Foreign
• Aboriginal Affairs: Social, Cultural, and Economic Factors and Equal Political Representation

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.109(2); Mar-Apr 2012

Legalization, Decriminalization & Medicinal Use of Cannabis: A Scientific and Public Health Perspective

Empirical and clinical studies clearly demonstrate significant adverse effects of cannabis smoking on physical and mental health as well as its interference with social and occupational functioning. These negative data far outweigh a few documented benefits for a limited set of medical indications, for which safe and effective alternative treatments are readily available. If there is any medical role for cannabinoid drugs, it lies with chemically defined compounds, not with unprocessed cannabis plant. Legalization or medical use of smoked cannabis is likely to impose significant public health risks, including an increased risk of schizophrenia, psychosis, and other forms of substance use disorders.

Introduction

In recent years, there has been a strong pressure on state legislatures across the US to legalize or decriminalize use and possession of specified amounts of cannabis and/or to pass laws that allow smoking of crude cannabis plant (also known as marijuana, weed, Mary Jane, pot, reefers, ganja, joint and grass) for prescribed medical purposes (so called “medical marijuana”). Advocacy groups claim that smoking cannabis is a safe and effective treatment for various psychological and medical conditions, ranging from stress and anxiety to Alzheimer’s dementia and Parkinson’s disease, even though cannabis is not approved for such use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Legalization of cannabis is the process of removing all legal prohibitions against it. Cannabis would then be available to the adult general population for purchase and use at will, similar to tobacco and alcohol. Decriminalization is the act of removing criminal sanctions against an act, article, or behavior. Decriminalization of cannabis means it would remain illegal, but the legal system would not prosecute a person for possession under a specified amount. Instead, the penalties would range from no penalties at all, civil fines, drug education, or drug treatment.

No state has legalized cannabis thus far. It remains a US federally-controlled substance, which makes possession and distribution illegal. However, at the time of this writing, 26 states in the US have passed either medical cannabis laws, cannabis decriminalization laws, or both. See Table 1 . A major concern of this commentary is that both the medicinal use of smoked cannabis plant and legalization/decriminalization of cannabis are being advocated in a way that circumvents the normal testing and regulatory processes by the FDA that is otherwise required for all drugs marketed for human use in the US. By circumventing this process, advocacy groups put state legislatures and/or voters in the position to decide on proposals with a certain impact on public health and medical treatment without necessarily being qualified to understand the pertinent scientific evidence.

US Cannabis Use Legislated into Law without FDA Approval

Taking advantage of the obscure legal status of cannabis (i.e., federally banned illicit drug but approved by local governments for medical and/or recreational purposes), businesses involving sales of cannabis are flourishing and even stock-market investments are available. For example, CannabisInvestments.com provides information on ways one can invest in hemp-related and medical marijuana products and companies. These business interest groups are ratcheting pressure on state legislatures to decriminalize or medicalize cannabis, counting on support of millions of addicted users and politicians looking for re-election votes and unaware of the dangers of such a legislative act.

History and Legal Status of Cannabis

Historically, cannabis has been used in various cultures and populations as indigenous therapy for a range of medical ailments (e.g., fever, insomnia, cachexia, headache, constipation, rheumatic pain) and diseases (e.g., venereal disease, malaria). Due to its presumed medical benefits, cannabis was recognized as an official, licit drug and listed in the U.S. Pharmacopoeia in 1850. Recreational use of cannabis surged in the 1930s during the Prohibition Era. In 1937, the Marijuana Tax Act effectively thwarted all cannabis use without criminalizing its possession or use. In 1970, the Controlled Substances Act classified cannabis as schedule I illicit drugs, the most restrictive category, and made possession a federal crime.

Reefer Madness is a well-known 1936 American propaganda exploitation film revolving around the melodramatic events that ensue when high school students are lured by pushers to try “marijuana” — from a hit and run accident, to manslaughter, suicide, attempted rape, and descent into madness.

The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), which administers the Controlled Substances Act, continues to support the Schedule I assignment (and FDA concurred) noting that cannabis meets the three criteria for such placement under 21 U.S.C. 812(b):

• high potential for abuse;
• no currently accepted medical use in the US; and
• lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.

A past evaluation by several Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agencies, including FDA, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA), concluded that no sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use. 1

Popular Perception of Cannabis Use

In the public debate, cannabis has been considered a relatively benign recreational drug in comparison to opiates, stimulants, even alcohol. The favorable popular perception of cannabis presumably reflects the absence of dramatic physical signs of intoxication or withdrawal. Incidentally, cessation of cannabis use does cause withdrawal, but the severity is masked by the gradual release of delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the major psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, from fat tissue (adipocytes) where it accumulates during chronic use. The process is not unlike the tapering of medication during detoxification.

The general public has not been adequately informed about recent scientific findings demonstrating major adverse effects of smoking cannabis on physical and especially mental health, the latter varying in range from cognitive dulling, brief psychotic experiences, to long-term addiction and chronic psychosis. 2 , 3

Epidemiology of Cannabis Use and Addiction

Cannabis (here referring to smoking of cannabis plants) is the most commonly used illicit drug in the US. Data from The National Survey on Drug Use and Health 4 , 5 indicate that 44% of males and 35% of females have used marijuana at least once in their life time. More recent studies suggest that regular use of marijuana is increasing. Data from National Survey on Drug Use and Health 6 indicate that in persons over the age of 12, the rate of past month cannabis use and the number of users in 2009 (6.6 percent or 16.7 million) were higher compared to 2008 (6.1% or 15.2 million) and 2007 (5.8% or 14.4 million).

Medicinal Use of Cannabinoids in Pill Form

Since THC was first isolated and purified 7 from the cannabis plant in 1965, more than 400 chemicals have been isolated, approximately 60 of which are cannabinoids, compounds that are the active agents of cannabis. Reflecting a rapidly growing interest in the therapeutic potential of cannabis, about 21 cannabinoids are currently under study by the US FDA. 8

More recently, two types of cannabinoid receptors have been identified: CB1 found mostly in the central nervous system and responsible for psychoactive properties of cannabis, and CB2 found mostly in the spleen, immune tissues, and peripheral blood, and responsible for immunological and anti-inflammatory effects of cannabis. 9 , 10 A group of endo-cannabinoids has been also identified, e.g., arachidonoylethanolamine or anandamide, as endogenous chemical modulators which mimic the actions of phytocannabinoids and activate cannabinoid receptors. 10 These discoveries have led to the development of numerous CB receptor agonists and antagonists and numerous studies have tested therapeutic indications for these compounds. Medications containing natural or synthetic cannabinoids currently approved or being considered for approval for medicinal use are listed below:

Dronabinol (proprietary name Marinol), a synthetic THC, is FDA approved as an antiemetic in patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy, as an appetite stimulant for weight loss/decreased food intake in AIDS patients, and less frequently to augment analgesic treatment. Dronabinol is a Schedule III medication, indicating it has some potential for psychological and physical dependence.

Nabilone (proprietary name Cesamet), is a synthetic cannabinoid. FDA approved for peroral treatment of nausea and vomiting in chemotherapy patients who have not responded to conventional antiemetics, and anorexia and weight loss in patients with AIDS. Nabilone is a Schedule II medication, with high potential for mental health side effects and addiction.

Sativex , a liquid extract from cannabis plant, is used as oral spray (“liquid marijuana”), contains THC, cannnabidiol (CBD), and other cannabinoids. Sativex has been approved for neuropathic pain, emesis, overactive bladder, and spasticity in several countries including England, Canada, and Spain. Phase III studies of Sativex are currently underway in the US, thus it does not have a schedule assigned to it.

These medications have been approved for specific indications (nausea, vomiting, cachexia) and are currently studied for a number of new indications, such as spastic syndromes, neurological disorders, neuropathic pain, and other pain syndromes, among others. Note that use of medications that have been tested and approved by the FDA is not controversial. What is objectionable is that current efforts to legalize cannabis crude plant use state legislative processes to bypass federal regulatory processes that were put in place specifically to protect the public health.

Suggested Non-FDA Approved Uses of Cannabinoids and Smoked Cannabis

Suggested but as of yet not FDA-approved indications for smoked cannabis and/or cannabinoids include spastic syndromes in neurological disorders, pain syndromes, and glaucoma. We reviewed about 70 studies of oral cannabinoids and the few available studies of smoked cannabis for a number of medical indications. As expected, prescription cannabinoids are effective antiemetics and appetite stimulants, and some studies report their effectiveness as adjunct therapy in chronic pain syndromes, spasticity, and glaucoma. Similar results are reported by the few studies of smoked cannabis plant for these same indications. As noted earlier, safe and effective alternative treatments for all these syndromes are available. Studies assessing psychological aspects of smoked cannabis and prescription cannabinoids uniformly report undesired effects: acute psychosis, poorer prognosis of chronic psychosis, or cognitive dulling in medical patients. In other words, in addition to a number of adverse medical effects (next section), psychological effects of cannabis are common and detrimental. Unfortunately, we found no long-term studies investigating whether and how frequently chronic use of small amounts of cannabis for medicinal purposes develops into cannabis abuse and/or addiction.

Adverse Medical Effects of Cannabis and THC

The extant scientific literature by and large reflects the harmful effects of inhaled cannabis smoke. In what follows we review some of these reports.

Respiratory

Many of the same mutagens and carcinogens found in tobacco smoke are found in marijuana smoke as well. 11 Marijuana smoking has been shown to decrease pulmonary function, produce chronic cough, airway inflammation and abnormal cell growth that may antecede the onset of cancer. 12 However, the International Agency for Research on Cancer found the epidemiologic data inconclusive as to the increased risk of cancer from cannabis use versus that of tobacco smokers. 13 In contrast to tobacco, marijuana-smoking lung injury is not reversed on abstinence. 14

Immunologic

In humans, an increase in mortality of HIV-positive cannabis users has been observed. 15

Cardiovascular

Direct stimulation of the cardiac pacemaker by marijuana leads to an increase in heart rate making THC unsafe in cardiac patients. 14

Daily cannabis use is a risk factor for fibrosis progression via steatogenic effects, thus, daily cannabis use in patients with liver disease is contraindicated. 16 Cannabis users metabolize and activate or inactivate drugs more slowly than normal, 17 potentiating the deleterious effects of the drugs.

Endocrine and Reproductive Systems

In preclinical studies, cannabinoids have shown inhibitory effects on pituitary luteinizing hormone, prolactin, growth hormone, and thyroid stimulating hormone with little effect on follicle-stimulating hormone. 18 , 19 Marijuana can disrupt female reproductive health. 20 Women who smoke marijuana during pregnancy are more likely to have low birth weight infants possibly from a shorter gestation. 21 The effects of maternal marijuana use on infant development have not been systematically studied. However, the lipid solubility of THC allows for rapid transit in breast milk, where it has been shown to accumulate and eventually pass to the newborn. 22

Carcinogenesis

Cannabis use increases the incidence of testicular germ cell tumors – TGCT. 23 The authors observed a 70% increased risk of TGCT associated with current marijuana use, and the risk was particularly elevated for current use that was at least weekly or that began in adolescence. These associations were independent of known TGCT risk factors.

Effects of Smoked Cannabis on Mental Health

Smoking cannabis has a number of acute and chronic pathogenic effects on human mental health. 3 , 24 Direct causal effects of chronic use are difficult to scientifically establish because the condition cannot be randomly assigned or manipulated experimentally for ethical reasons. Nevertheless, prospective population studies indicate that early cannabis use frequently serves as a prelude (or “gateway”) to other illicit drug use. Despite occasional non-confirmatory results, the “gateway sequence” is the most common pattern in the sequential progression in drug use, 25 where marijuana use often is the initial step leading towards more powerful and more harmful drugs.

The mental effects of smoked cannabis include mental slowness, “relaxation”, tiredness, euphoria, and some users report anxiety and paranoia. Acute negative effects on cognition and performance, limited to periods of intoxication, have been all well-documented. 26 , 27 Long-term effects of cannabis use on cognitive performance involve subtle and selective impairments of specific higher cognitive functions 27 , 28 including an impaired ability to focus attention and filter out irrelevant information, which is progressive with the cumulative duration of exposure to cannabis. 29 These effects of chronic use recover only partially in ex-cannabis users, but the past duration of cannabis use continued to have an adverse effect on the ability to effectively reject complex irrelevant information. 30

Remodeling of Brain Reward Circuits - Cannabis Addiction

Active ingredients in cannabis, THC in particular, affect neurophysiological and behavioral systems in ways similar to addictive drugs. 31 Cannabis use is associated with reinforcing pleasurable feelings of reward and euphoria either through direct effects on CB1 receptors expressed in N. Accumbens or through collateral circuits (including endogenous opiate receptors) with similar effects on the reward pathway in the brain. 31 In most cases, addictive drugs “reset” the threshold for stimulation of the reward pathway at a higher level, where only supraphysiological stimulation by drugs can generate the desired feeling of reward. This “hijacking” of the reward pathway reduces the motivational power of natural rewards (e.g. food, opportunity to mate, relationships, etc) and thus reshapes normal motivational priorities. With repeated stimulation of this pathway, cannabis use induces neural plasticity and alters reward-based learning, 32 all leading to phenomenological and behavioral features typical of addiction. Suggestive of its high addictiveness, cannabis is the most commonly used illicit drug in the US and rate of its use continues to rise. 4 , 5 , 6

Cannabis Use and Well-Being

Proponents of cannabis use argue that smoking cannabis provides relaxation and pleasure, enhances the sense of well being, contributes to stress-relief, and helps to deal with hard reality. Of course, any enhancement of well being of a mentally healthy person through use of a psychoactive substance is some sense an oxymoron. Furthermore, cannabis use decreases cortical dopamine 33 which plays a major role in higher cognitive functions, working memory, executive function, etc. Hence, the “relaxed” feeling most cannabis users report as a desirable acute effect, in all likelihood reflects cognitive dulling (“amotivational syndrome”) caused by decreases in cortical dopamine. In other words, the weight of evidence indicates that cannabis creates cognitive dulling rather than reduction in anxiety, indifference rather than relaxation, and amotivation rather than inner peace, all closer to psychopathology than to well being.

Cannabis Use and Work Performance

There is an ongoing debate whether cannabis use interferes with people’s ability to work, relate to others, and/or live a normal life. Recent research clearly shows that any work that requires cognitive involvement and decision making is affected by cannabis use. 27 , 28 , 29 , 34 In a study of young, otherwise mentally and physically healthy cannabis users, Wadsworth et al 28 report an association between cannabis use and impairment in cognitive function and mood but not with workplace errors (although there was an association with lower alertness and slower response organization). Users experienced working memory problems at the start, and psychomotor slowing and poorer episodic recall at the end of the work week. This highlights the importance of the timing of testing within the context and routine of everyday life. In a separate study of the same sample, cannabis use had a significant negative impact on safety at work (such as self-reported accidents), road traffic accidents, and minor injuries. 34 Those who had higher levels of other risk factors associated with accidents and who also used cannabis were more likely to report an accident in the previous year. Thus, it is possible that cannabis-related effects were linked to an amplification of other risk factors associated with accidents and injuries. 34

Cannabis Use and Mental Health in the General Population

According to the study 35 of 18,500 cannabis smokers published by Statistics Netherlands in October 2010, cannabis users suffer mental health problems twice as often as nonusers. The relative risk of mental problems was doubled in male and female cannabis users (20% and 28%, respectively) compared to male and female nonusers (10% and 14%, respectively). Most common mental health issues reported by cannabis users were anxiety, melancholy, sadness, and impatience. In contrast, physical health of users and nonusers barely differed. Though technically illegal, the Netherlands decriminalized the consumption and possession of less than 5 grams (0.18 ounces) of cannabis in 1976 under an official “tolerance” policy.

Taking advantage of the obscure legal status of cannabis, businesses involving sales of cannabis are flourishing and even stock-market investments are available.

For example, CannabisInvestments. com provides information on ways one can invest in hemp-related and medical marijuana products and companies.

CNS Effects of Chronic Cannabis Use

Recently, specific pathogenic effects of cannabis on human brain tissue have been documented. Using high-resolution (3-T) structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Yucel et al 36 determined long-term heavy cannabis use is associated with gross anatomical abnormalities in two cannabinoid receptor–rich regions of the brain, the hippocampus and the amygdala. Subects were healthy males with long-term (more than 10 years) and heavy (more than five joints daily) cannabis use with no history of poly-drug use or neurologic/mental disorders. Cannabis users had bilaterally and significantly reduced hippocampal and amygdala volumes, with changes greater in the hippocampus. In fact, left hemisphere hippocampal volume was inversely associated with cumulative exposure to cannabis during the previous 10 years as well as with subthreshold positive psychotic symptoms. Positive psychosis symptom scores were also associated with cumulative exposure to cannabis.

Cannabis Use and the Risk of Schizophrenia, Psychosis, and Affective Disorders

Cannabis use is among the environmental factors associated with increased risk and worsened prognosis of schizophrenia and some data suggest a causal effect. 3 Cannabis use also is associated with more prevalent expressions of a wider psychosis phenotype. Isolated psychotic symptoms have reported prevalences of 5–15% among chronic cannabis users. 2 , 3 Although causality remains difficult to infer from observational studies, the weight of the evidence appears to favor a causal contribution from cannabis use for the development of Schizophrenia and psychosis. 2

Recent meta-analyses lend further support to the hypothesis that cannabis use causally contributes to the increased risk of development of schizophrenia. In a comprehensive and systematic meta-analysis, Moore et al 37 determined whether cannabis use contributes causally to the development of nonsubstance psychiatric illness, such as schizophrenia and affective disorders. The study was designed to address as much as possible two of the most important methodological problems in studying the relation between cannabis use and psychosis: 1) the potential for reverse causality (where psychosis causes cannabis use and not vice versa) and 2) the transitory intoxication effects (that is misinterpreted as psychosis as the false positive error). The results indicated that the risk of psychosis is increased by roughly 40% (pooled adjusted OR: 1.41) in cannabis users. The results were not as impressive for affective disorders. Within the users, a dose-response effect was observed with the risk more than doubled (OR =2.1) in the most frequent users. For cannabis and psychosis, there was evidence of confounding effects, but the associations persisted in almost all studies, even after adjustment for comprehensive lists of variables. The authors concluded that “there is now sufficient evidence to warn young people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life” (page 319).

In a meta analysis of peer-reviewed publications in English reporting age at onset of psychotic illness in substance using and non–substance using groups Large et al 38 found an association between cannabis use and earlier onset of psychosis (the effect was not seen with alcohol). The authors suggest the need for renewed warnings about the potentially harmful effects of cannabis. Similar findings are reported by other authors. 39

Genetic Moderation of Cannabis Effect on Psychosis

One of the most puzzling aspects of cannabis-associated psychosis is that schizophrenia is not rising in incidence to reflect prevalent cannabis use. The likely answer is that there is variation in individual sensitivity to the psychosis-inducing effects of cannabis. In other words, individuals who have a greater biological vulnerability to psychosis are more likely to develop psychotic experiences when exposed to cannabis. As an example, the COMT Val/Val genotype is a risk factor for schizophrenia in the general population 40 presumably by providing a pathological substrate, such as low dopamine in the frontal cortex 40 and high mesolimbic dopamine. 41 Both conditions are believed to contribute to schizophrenia symptoms. Carriers of the COMT Val/Val genotype have low cortical dopamine but do not automatically develop schizophrenia. Rather, this genotype is considered to be a matter of individual variability in the level of cortical dopamine. Hovever, carriers of this genotype, who were also chronic cannabis users as adolescents, have a dramatically (up to 10 times) higher risk of psychosis 42 compared to adult-onset cannabis users with the same genotype. Cannabis use is reported to further decrease cortical 33 and increase mesolimbic dopamine 43 possibly amplifying the preexisting, genetically created dopamine deficit. If occurring during the sensitive developmental period of adolescence, such augmentation may synergistically facilitate the onset of psychosis. Similar interactive synergism was recently described for the AKT1 gene and cannabis. 45

Finally, recent study by Welch et al 44 was the first longitudinal study to demonstrate an association between thalamic volume loss and exposure to cannabis in people currently unaffected by Schizophrenia but with increased risk for the illness due to positive family history. As Welch et al 44 conclude, this finding may be important in understanding the link between cannabis exposure and the subsequent development of Schizophrenia.

Empirical and clinical studies reviewed here clearly demonstrate pathological effects of cannabis smoking on physical and especially mental health as well as its interference with social and occupational functioning. We did not find a single methodologically sound study to suggest that the benefits of smoking cannabis outweigh the associated risks. These negative data far outweigh documented benefits for a limited set of medical indications for which safe and effective alternative treatments are readily available. However, advocacy groups are pursuing legalization or medical use of smoked cannabis, largely ignoring pills containing extracted THC and other cannabinoids. It appears therefore that it is not the benefit of active cannabis ingredients, but the route of administration, a wider set of indications, and the ritual of use that’s being advocated. Based on the empirical and clinical evidence reviewed here, it seems safe to conclude that, if there is any medical role for cannabinoid drugs, it lies with chemically modified extracts, not with unprocessed cannabis plant.

Dragan M. Svrakic, MD, PhD, and Patrick J. Lustman, PhD, practice at the Washington University School of Medicine and the Veterans Administration Medical Center in St. Louis. Ashok Mallya, MD, Taylor Andrea Lynn, PhD, and Rhonda Finney, RN, practice at the Veterans Administration Medical Center. Neda M. Svrakic, is at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Contact: [email protected]

None reported.

Joe Kearns's ePortfolio

The best of the best.

Why Marijuana Should Be Decriminalized

This is a persuasive essay designed for me to convince a specific audience to take my position on a public issue. The Audience Statement clarifies my targeted audience and clarifies my objectives in the essay.

Audience Statement

Because polls indicate that the majority people who are the same age as me share my point of view on medicinal marijuana, it serves little purpose to appeal to them. Rather my essay is designed to appeal to my parents’ generation, or adults between the ages of 35 and 60. The goal is to persuade them that the values they care about are compatible with the legalization of marijuana and incompatible with keeping marijuana criminalized. My essay is written as if it is being verbally presented to a group of these adults at a town meeting. The goal is to persuade them that legalizing marijuana use is the correct policy.

A common stereotype of citizens who oppose the criminalization of marijuana caricatures these people as lazy, unintelligent drug addicts. This caricature distorts arguments in favor of marijuana decriminalization which come from citizens who care deeply about the criminal justice system, public health, and socioeconomic mobility. While some citizens exclusively support decriminalizing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, others argue that the recreational use of marijuana should also be a legal act. By making these arguments, proponents of marijuana’s decriminalization reveal the logical fallacies embedded in the arguments of those in favor of maintaining the current drug laws. The idea that people should abstain from marijuana use is a valid proposition, but it incorporates a question of value that is irrelevant to the question of policy at hand. While opponents of decriminalization base their argument on the premise that current drug policy eases social and economic problems, data shows that this policy exacerbates the problems they intend to resolve. To improve public health and the criminal justice system, state and federal governments should decriminalize the medicinal and recreational uses of marijuana.

Far from a new, unproven innovation in the field of medicine, marijuana has been used for medicinal purposes for over four thousand years with positive results. Its earliest known medical use was in 2737 B.C., when the Chinese Emperor Shen Nung described the therapeutic applications of cannabis in his compendium of Chinese medicinal herbs (Amar). This drug has been used as a treatment for pain relief, earaches, childbirth, and other medical purposes in Asia, the Middle East, the eastern coast of Africa, and India for over four thousand years to the present day (Stack). In the 18 th century, American medical journals advocated the usage of marijuana to treat inflamed skin, incontinence, and venereal disease (Stack). After Dr. William O’Shaughnessy found that marijuana eased pain and various symptoms of rheumatism, rabies, cholera, and tetanus, he sparked its popular use to England and the United States throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Stack). It was only when the U.S. government enacted several taxes and prohibitions on drugs in the twentieth century that the misconceptions surrounding marijuana spread. The recent uses for marijuana in treating ailments validate the extensive historical use of this drug and invalidate contemporary misconceptions about it. Because marijuana has such an extensive history of medical usefulness, it is illogical to deny its ability to treat symptoms of many diseases. Nevertheless, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted an Inter-Agency Advisory which fallaciously argued that “no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use” (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). It is valid to say that marijuana has some side effects on people who use it, but false to suggest that there are no occasions when it benefits a patient more than it harms him. In making this argument, the FDA conveniently ignores 4,000 years of medical history which prove it wrong.

Evidence shows that marijuana’s positive health benefits ease pain and save lives, making the argument for its decriminalization an argument for the rights of patients. One prominent official, Joycelyn Elders, the former U.S. Surgeon General argues, “The evidence is overwhelming that marijuana can relieve certain types of pain, nausea, vomiting, and other symptoms caused by such illnesses as multiple sclerosis, cancer, and AIDS—or by the harsh drugs sometimes used to treat them” (Elders). When governments choose to prohibit patients from seeking cures for ailments and impose unnecessary suffering, they violate the human right to “a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family” (Universal). For instance, up to 20% of cancer patients die from a dramatic loss of fat and muscle tissue called wasting, a process that can be reversed through marijuana use. Karen O’Keefe, an attorney and Legislative Analyst for Marijuana Policy Project, argues, “With roughly 20% of all cancer deaths caused by wasting, it is cruel and senseless to criminalize the doctor-advised use of a safe, effective, and widely available treatment” (O’Keefe). The alleged benefit of appeasing society’s misconceptions regarding marijuana is negligible compared to the cost of death or severe pain imposed on patients in need of medical treatment. If governments are willing to permit drugs like Valium, Amphetamine, Methadone, Ketamine, OxyContin, Xanax, and Hydrocodone to be used as acceptable medical treatments, it is illogical to prohibit marijuana. In contrast to these drugs, there is no evidence showing that marijuana is responsible for a single death from overdose (Marijuana). By decriminalizing it, there is everything to gain and almost nothing to lose.

The common assumption that marijuana has the same level of addictive qualities as drugs like cocaine or heroin has been proven false by medical studies. After he co-founded a medical cannabis evaluation practice, Dr. Phillip Denney said, “I have found in my study of these patients that cannabis is really a safe, effective and non-toxic alternative to many standard medications. There is no such thing as an overdose. We have seen very minimal problems with abuse or dependence, which at worst are equivalent to dependence on caffeine” (Denney). The image of a marijuana overdose appeals to people with limited knowledge about drugs, as they are familiar with overdoses on hard drugs like heroin and cocaine. Because the FDA erroneously classifies marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, as it does with heroin and cocaine, the common person is increasingly likely to overestimate the side effects of marijuana and be ignorant to the relative safety in using this drug for medical reasons. Denney’s assertion that there is no such thing as an overdose is correct, but it is important to note that habitual overconsumption of marijuana will produce undesirable symptoms. David Sack, an opponent to the legalization of marijuana, is wise to cite medical studies which demonstrate that the drug can impair the nervous system’s control over bodily functions including memory, attention, disposition, arousal, motivation, perception, appetite, and sleep (Sack). The effects on people who consume excessive amounts of marijuana are a good reason to avoid habitual overconsumption of the drug, but Sack fails to make a compelling case the drug is so dangerous that it should be denied to patients whose lives could depend on it. Legal prescription drugs can also have harmful long-term effects if a person consumes too much of them, but the manner in which they help treat symptoms of medical conditions makes them desirable when used in moderation. Like legal prescription drugs available on the market, marijuana should be classified as a Schedule 2 drug by the FDA in accordance with its relatively low medical risk compared to hard drugs. The fact that marijuana has side effects proves that it is the norm among drugs, not the exception.

Like prohibitions on medicinal marijuana, the prohibitions on recreational marijuana have either been ineffective or counterproductive regarding public health, economic, and social issues. Despite the fact that marijuana arrests have increased from 2 to 86.5 per hour in the time period between 1965 and 2011, polls consistently indicate that usage rates have not decreased (Marijuana). Moreover, the Journal of Public Health Policy states, “citizens who live under decriminalization laws consume marijuana at rates less than or comparable to those who live in regions where the possession of marijuana remains a criminal offense” (Marijuana). Without evidence supporting their claim that criminalizing marijuana can change Americans’ drug consumption, the opponents of decriminalizing marijuana promote the misconception that marijuana is a gateway drug. This idea says marijuana per se does not create public danger, but it causes people who consume marijuana to use more dangerous drugs like heroin or cocaine. The biggest flaw with this argument is evident in a survey from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which explains that “more than 76 million Americans have admittedly tried marijuana. The overwhelming majority of these users did not go on to become regular marijuana users, try other illicit drugs, or suffer any deleterious effects to their health” (Marijuana). There are certainly some individuals who initially used marijuana and later used other illicit drugs, but there is no evidence suggesting these individuals are anything close to a majority of marijuana users. Even if the premise of the “gateway drug” argument is to be accepted, the effects of criminalizing marijuana have proven to be counterproductive as “rates of hard drug use (illicit drugs other than marijuana) among emergency room patients are substantially higher in states that have not decriminalized marijuana use” (Marijuana). The premise that marijuana is a gateway drug is inconsistent with the argument against legalizing it. If the “gateway drug” argument were true, then its proponents should also support the repeal of the prohibition against marijuana because of the lower rate of its use and the lower rate of hard drug use in states that have decriminalization laws. The laws which prohibit marijuana use are merely a gateway to an inefficient and counterproductive social experiment in the name of public safety.

The absence of benefits from criminalizing recreational uses of marijuana is less alarming than the costs incurred through the criminal justice system and the excessive burden imposed on those convicted for marijuana offenses. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, “police arrest more Americans per year on marijuana charges than the total number of arrestees for all violent crimes combined, including murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault” (Marijuana). Residents of cities with particularly high crime rates should be concerned that the resources of their local law enforcement agencies are being spread too thin to deal with violent crimes. In the 1990s, the annual cost of arresting and prosecuting individuals for marijuana violations was between $7.5 billion and $10 billion, and it has increased since then (Marijuana). The prohibition on marijuana imposes an opportunity cost on taxpayers who could otherwise spend or save the money for purposes of their own choosing, or on governments which could otherwise use more resources for prosecuting violent crimes. Even more outlandish than the cost imposed on taxpayers and law enforcement is the draconian set of penalties imposed on individuals who violate marijuana laws. Federal law dictates that individuals possessing a marijuana cigarette or less can be given maximum penalties of a one-year prison sentence and a $10,000 fine, the same penalty for individuals arrested on heroin or cocaine offenses (Marijuana). In several states, marijuana offenders may even receive maximum sentences of life in prison (Marijuana). Considering that the only impact of recreational marijuana usage might be a slight increase in cost from health problems pertaining to marijuana use that are no greater than the health problems arising from many legal drugs, it is alarming that the punishments for this act are often equivalent to crimes resulting in deaths of other people. When a state’s criminal justice system allows those convicted of rape, manslaughter, assault, or other violent crimes to potentially receive a lighter sentence than someone convicted of possessing marijuana, the justice system fails to uphold the principle that the punishment should fit the crime.

Not only do drug laws distribute a huge burden on society in general, but this burden is distributed far more severely on minority citizens than on their white counterparts. The manner in which racial bias affects the enforcement of drug laws undermines the ideal of equality under the law. According to the U.S. Government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Data Archive, 76% of marijuana consuming adults are white, while 11% are black (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Data Archive). Despite this, blacks are arrested at a higher rate for marijuana than whites in 90% of U.S. counties, and blacks are arrested at a rate twice as high as the arrest rate for whites in 64% of those counties (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Data Archive). Because of the steep sentences and penalties for marijuana offenses, black Americans convicted of marijuana offenses face a disproportionate burden of achieving economic stability through employment compared to their white counterparts. Moreover, federal benefits including federal financial student aid and public housing can be withheld from marijuana offenders, so the disproportionately high numbers of blacks who are arrested on marijuana charges are confronted with a continuation of a racialized cycle of poverty (Marijuana). While not overtly a racist policy in theory, marijuana prohibitions, as they are practiced, reinforce economic inequities along racial lines by making black Americans pay a steeper cost than white Americans. Racial equality, along with economic opportunity and advancements in the prosecution of violent crimes, is threatened by the existence of the current laws which regulate marijuana. The flaws of prosecuting marijuana offenses so extensively are not worthy of the sacrifice of these ideals by the American people.

The current framework of marijuana prohibitions is responsible for inefficiencies in the criminal justice system and unfair burdens faced by individuals prosecuted under these laws. The proposal in which states and the federal government decriminalize medical uses of marijuana is an admirable idea which appeals to the pathos of the American public by offering assistance to sick persons in need of access to this drug. Nevertheless, the problems inflicted by marijuana laws cannot be completely solved unless laws prohibiting the recreational use of marijuana are repealed as well. Until then, taxpayers who pay for the enforcement of modern laws and the nonviolent drug users who receive extreme punishments shoulder an excessive cost in return for very little benefit to society, if there is any benefit at all. It is time to refute the misconception that decriminalizing marijuana is a barrier to socioeconomic opportunity, safety, and public health. This will allow the American public to realize that decriminalization is truly the gateway to a society more reflective of its ideals.

Works Cited

Amar, Mohamed Ben. “Cannabinoids in medicine: A review of their therapeutic potential.” Journal of Ethno-Pharmacology 105 (2006): 1-25. Print.

Denney, Phillip. “An Act to Permit the Medical Use of Marijuana.” Arkansas General Assembly. Arkansas State Capitol Building, Little Rock, AR. 17 Nov. 2005. Testimony to the Legislature.

Elders, Joycelyn. “Myths About Medical Marijuana.” The Providence Journal . Americans for Safe Access, 26 Mar. 2004. Web. 26 Mar. 2013. http://americansforsafeaccess.org/section.php?id=344

“Marijuana Decriminalization Talking Points.” The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws . NORML, 10 Mar. 2003. Web. 1 Apr. 2013. http://norml.org/pdf_files/NORML_decriminalization_talking_points.pdf

O’Keefe, Karen. “Re: Should Marijuana Be A Medical Option?” Message to procon.org. 21 Sep 2005. E-mail.

Sack, David. “Is marijuana good medicine?” Los Angeles Times , 26 Jul. 2012. Web. 1 Apr. 2013. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/26/opinion/la-oe-0726-sack-medical-marijuana-20120726

Stack, Patrick. “A Brief History of Medical Marijuana.” Time . Time Mag., 21 Oct. 2009. Web. 26 Mar. 2013. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1931247,00.html

United States. Food and Drug Administration. “For Immediate Release: Inter-Agency Advisory Regarding Claims That Smoked Marijuana Is A Medicine.” Silver Spring, MD: GPO, 20 Apr. 2006.

United States. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Data Archive. “Quick Table: National Survey on Drug Use and Health.” Washington: GPO, 2007.

“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations. 2013. Web. 1 Apr. 2013. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique

Article Review

• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper

Research Paper

• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

The Decriminalization of Marijuana, Research Paper Example

Pages: 11

Words: 3030

Hire a Writer for Custom Research Paper

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

The aim of this paper is to outline the rationale for the legalization of marijuana and thus to make a case for its consequent decriminalization. In this regard, the attention is paid to the benefits of using marijuana, effects marijuana has on the population, cons of legalization and the main arguments in favor of legalization. It is argued that the legalization of marijuana is not the precondition for its further spread rather a rational choice due to the existing discourse on the subject matter.

Key words : marijuana, legalization, drug abuse, decriminalization, pain relief.

The Decriminalization of Marijuana

In the history of human development, various aspects of human behavior had different evaluation in terms of social approval and criminal status. Although some actions like harming another human being are universally unlawful, the others are more controversial in their nature and social perception. One of such controversial issues is the matter of the legalization of marijuana in the USA. The aim of this paper is to make the case for the decriminalization of marijuana. In this regard, the attention is paid to the benefits of using marijuana, effects marijuana has on the population, cons of legalization and finally the benefits of legalization.

Benefits of using marijuana

The main rationale for the legalization of the medical marijuana in California and other twenty-two states was conditioned by the medical properties of the herb and its painkilling effect on the body (Beau, 2012). Consequently, the main argument in favor of the legalization of all marijuana is due to the benefits it has for the health of people using it. Recently, due to the increase of the interest to marijuana and its potential legalization, various medical examinations and research was conducted on its effect on various illnesses. First of all, it can be used for treatment of such an eye disease as glaucoma, because it can reduce the inner pressure in the eye, which can slow the development of the disease (Morgan, 2010).

According to one of the recent findings, smoking marijuana can reverse the impact of the smoking tobacco. It is argued that because in order to smoke marijuana the user has to make a deep breath it increases the lung capacity and the consequent functioning of the lung (Ruschmann, 2009). Marijuana also demonstrated to be effective in the treatment of epileptic seizures, although it was just tested on rats, preventing them from seizures for up to ten hours. The main explanation for this ability is conditioned by the ability of cannabinoids to bind the brain cells that are responsible for epileptic attacks (Russo, 2013).

Findings of another research demonstrated that marijuana is successful in stopping cancer from spreading by eliminating functionality of the gene Id-1, which is responsible for copying itself and entering the healthy cells, thus spreading the cancer (Russo, 2013). Further tests of breast cancer treatment demonstrated that after the sessions of marijuana treatment, the spread of cancer decreased. Thus, some researchers suggest that the use of marijuana might be able to prevent cancer or at least decrease the chances of its appearance. Other diseases that marijuana can slow down or ease include Dravet’s Syndrome, Alzheimer disease, multiple sclerosis. It also eases the effects of hepatitis C treatment, improving its effectiveness. It also relieves various pains including severe migraines and bone pains (Russo, 2013).

All mentioned above therapeutic benefits of marijuana for people with mentioned above diseases can be covered by the legalization of medical marijuana. So, the question is why it should be legalized for the rest of the population? What would be the benefits for other people to use it? First of all, the primary benefit of occasional use of marijuana is that it has a relaxing and calming effect on the user. In this regard, it relieves the body of stress and any type of pain. In terms of brain function, it numbs the highly active functions and lets the brain rest from the problems of the day (Russo, 2013). In this regard, the main function of marijuana for the users is that it relieves the stress that causes more cardio-vascular disorders than any other factor in our contemporary life.

For people that always under pressure marijuana could provide an alternative to such way of stress-relief as alcohol or other drugs. Although other drugs are illegal, it does not stop people from using them. So, legal marijuana would be a healthier alternative to the other two options. It would hurt the liver like alcohol and it would not damage the entire body like heavy drugs, which usually excite the body and nervous system instead of relaxing and calming it down like marijuana does (Russo, 2013). Furthermore, small doses of marijuana demonstrated to be effective in eliminating the symptoms of anxiety and depression. In terms of its painkilling effect, it is healthier than constant taking of the painkillers, mainly because cannabinoids affect the brain directly, while painkillers go through blood, and their remnants of their degradation accumulate in the liver damaging its normal function (Beau, 2012). Overall, the benefits for the user are tremendous so far it is a small dose and it is not a constant consumption that turns into a habit.

Effects marijuana has on the population

According to the international UN statistics, 158.8 million or 3.8% of world’s population uses marijuana (Morgan, 2010). In the US, in one of the surveys 94 million admitted trying it at least once. In 2007, 6.7% in the age group 12-17 were using marijuana (Beau, 2012). According to the US federal statistics, in the last twenty years domestic production of marijuana has increased from 1,000 metric ton in 1981 to 10,000 in 2006. Other statistics demonstrate that various criminal actions involved marijuana, in 2005, more than 242,000 visits to emergency involved marijuana (Ruschmann, 2009). Marijuana is also the second most popular substance after alcohol (Morgan, 2010).

This statistics demonstrates a few trends in marijuana’s effect on population. From one perspective, it becomes obvious that being illegal a certain part of the population considered it to be harmless to try. It also suggests that just as alcohol it can have both relaxing and harmful effect if abused. This suggests the second trend that just as any opiate if abused marijuana can result in criminal activity since it can blur one’s thinking and perception of deviance in their actions (Beau, 2012). However, this refers to the cases when it is abused just as alcohol is involved in various criminal actions when abused, yet it is legal for every full adult.

The main effect of marijuana on population is that if it is used in normal doses and not as habitual pattern, it would actually decrease the number conflicts among people and could pacify the population due to aforementioned properties of marijuana. It could eventually become a substitution for an alcohol, and it would definitely be a more socially-convenient substitution (Ruschmann, 2009). The main rationale for this argument is that the use and the abuse of alcohol results in a different behavior than the use and the abuse of marijuana. Under the influence of big dose of alcohol, people tend to become aggressive and defensive while the use of marijuana has the opposite effect. It relaxes people and calms them down. Thus, it can prevent the conflict from happening. On the other hand, the abuse of marijuana as any substance can result in abuse the potential development of addiction (Beau, 2012). In this regard, the impact of marijuana on population would be the development of another source of addiction and an element to destabilize the law and order balance in the society.

The problem of marijuana’s effect on population is dual because like with alcohol it largely depends on the way it is used and for which purposes. In this regard, people who intend to abuse marijuana will still buy it from their dealers illegally. People who will want to try it still will be buying from the same dealers. Those who will want to abuse this substance are not stopped by law at present, and the legalization of marijuana will only make it legal. On the other hand, the rest of the population will be given a choice to try marijuana by buying it in a safe and legal way or not to try it at all.

In terms of this discourse, it is also essential to outline that irrespective of the predominant fear that the legalization of marijuana will increase the crime rate and would stimulate further drug abuse that is a very unlike scenario to develop. The main rationale is that the population that lives a healthy life and considered any artificial stimulators to be irrelevant in their life will not care about marijuana legal or not (Morgan, 2010). Categories of the American society that are predisposition to commit a crime will commit it under the influence of marijuana legal or not or under the influence of alcohol or heavier drugs. At the end of the day, it is not the substance that trigger deviant behavior but an individual that makes a decision and who is convinced that committing a crime is his only option. Thus, the legalization of marijuana would not be the main source of crime escalation in the nearest future (Ruschmann, 2009). Consequently, the impact of marijuana on the population is that it will simply make it easier and safer to obtain rather than keep ordinary users in the grey zone between legal and illegal.

The cons of the legalization of marijuana

As any controversial issue, the legalization of marijuana has various arguments against it. First of all, it is often argued that the state should be involved in the dissemination of addictive substances, since it could be viewed as a state promotion of immoral actions harming one’s health and clarity of mind (Beau, 2012). This argument is often conditioned by the religious moral perception of the functionality of the state as a guardian of moral behavior of the people and it should discourage the use of soft drugs instead of encouraging it through the legalization.

The next argument is based on the escalation approach to the abuse of drugs. In this regard, antagonists of legalization argue that the legalization of marijuana would encourage people to use it resulting in a greater number of people developing addictions to this drug (Ruschmann, 2009). The mass consumption of the legalized marijuana is believed to trigger a greater demand for the hard drugs as a result of strengthening addiction to marijuana. Consequently, from the antagonists’ perspective, it is not only the state would encourage people to become drug addicts but also it would increase the demand for drug dealers and would assist drug cartels in making money in their business. Thus, the federal money spent on fighting cartels would be used for nothing (Kenneth and Xueyan, 2009). In this regard, it is also suggested that legalization and public support of marijuana would result in the encouragement of children to take drugs at a very young age since one of the drugs is legal than the others should not be too bad (Morgan, 2010).

Another widespread suggestion is that the legalization of marijuana would increase the crime rate and stimulate people to conduct deviant behavior (Beau, 2012). However, as it was outlined above deviation is conditioned by personal moral code and personal motivations rather than the use of marijuana itself. In terms of the economic perspective of the matter, it is also argued that marijuana should not be legalized because it would create an undesired demand for which the national market would be able to satisfy. This would require creating more marijuana farms and using more fertile lands for growing marijuana. In other words, by legalizing marijuana, the land which could be used for growing food would be used for growing marijuana which is more expensive than tomatoes, for instance (Morgan, 2010).

It is also outlined that the abuse of marijuana can result in severe health problems. It can result in long-term memory loss, learning difficulties, potential lung infection, increase in the heart rate and also it is assumed that it results in the permanent brain damage (Morgan, 2010).  Thus, in a long run, the legalization of marijuana would result in deterioration of population’s health level and would eventually result in weaker and more ill the next generation of American citizens (Ruschmann, 2009). Consequently, is argued that the state should be interested in securing health and well-being of its people and not encourage them to make choices harming their lives.

All mentioned above antagonistic arguments are based on morality and duties of the state and the assumption that by legalizing marijuana all people would just rush to take and abuse it. This rationale does not take into consideration the diversity of people and motivations for their actions. They also do not take into account that people who want to take marijuana will take it legally or not, and those who do not want to will not. It is the matter of free will. From a psychological perspective, the forbidden item is usually the most desired and keeping marijuana outside the legal framework makes it even more desirable particularly for teenagers who would get this way or the other. The only difference would be that they could get it safely when they are of the right age, or they could get involved with the wrong people and end up in the criminal circles (Morgan, 2010). Except for this refutation of the cons, there are also other pros which need to be taken into account.

Pros for the legalization of marijuana

First of all, the legalization of marijuana would make the way of its obtaining safer for the users, who would not be robbed or killed in the wrong places. It would take the market of marijuana from the hands of drug cartels and would locate it is the local or federal governmental hand (Beau, 2012). In this regard, when the market would be controlled by the state, the drug cartels would not be able to gain profit from marijuana on the black market, which is the major source of their income. It would also discourage them from growing their marijuana on various locations in the national parks across the US (Kenneth and Xueyan, 2009). In other words, when the demand of the national market would be satisfied by the state, growing marijuana for the black market and transport it abroad would be simply unprofitable. The main benefit for the local, state and federal government is that legalization would result in the opportunity to put taxes on marijuana. It would become an immense source of funding the local budgets which can be used for further improvement of the law enforcement activities (Kenneth and Xueyan, 2009). Another important aspect in this context is that the efforts and the funds spent on the law enforcement in their fight against marijuana dealing and trafficking across the country could be redirected in a different sphere. They could be used for fighting gang crime or homicide investigations instead of chasing marijuana producers and spending time on distinguishing medical marijuana producers from the illegal ones (Ruschmann, 2009).

In terms of the existing marijuana stores that sell medical marijuana, the legalization of marijuana would provide them also with a greater security. First of all, their employees would not be stopped and detained by police all the time. They will not have to keep all their money in cash in safes on the premises, being a mark for robbery. The point is that banks are reluctant to accept money that had anything to do with marijuana business, since according to the federal law marijuana is illegal and they do not want to endanger their funds (Beau, 2012). Thus, it is the illegal status of marijuana that encourages crime in this situation.

In terms of the perspective of the private businesses, they are ready for the legalization of marijuana and the boost it would make to marijuana-related sectors of industry. In this regard, medical marijuana legalization in California triggered the development of companies specializing in seed and land preparation for marijuana cultivation, machines for its collection and processing, various types of smoking devices, supporting items like T-shirts and key holders and many other things reacted to it (Kenneth  and Xueyan, 2009). The main rationale in this context is that legalization would boost this sector of the economy, stimulating further employment. From the global perspective, legalization would also stimulate marijuana tourism like it did in Amsterdam (Beau, 2012).

The benefit of legalization for ordinary people is that they are given a freedom of choice about whether they want to use or marijuana or not. They do not need to find some deviant places in order to buy marijuana for recreational use (Morgan, 2010). Also, people that use medical marijuana by prescription will not have to go to isolated places away from the main streets were medical marijuana shops are allowed to be located by the current state law. It would be much more convenient for them to obtain it and use for the medical purposes.

In fact, from all mentioned above it can be concluded that there is no strong evidence against the legalization of marijuana. At the first glance it may seem that legalization of a drug is against the law and order paradigm; however, the soft category of marijuana make it the same as alcohol and tobacco leaving its use to the choice of an individual rather than the matter of governmental discussions and regulations. The legalization of marijuana would benefit everyone from the government to the ordinary recreational user. On the other hand, the continuation of the argument and polarization of society in terms of this argument make no good to any side. It only keeps medical marijuana producers in the grey zone and enforces the local authorities to distinguish between these shades of grey and try to explain to the taxpayers what the difference is.

Beau, K. (2012). Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kenneth, C. and Xueyan Z. (2009). Economic and Marijuana: Consumption, Pricing and Legalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Morgan, K. (2010). Legalizing Marijuana . Edina, MN: ABDO Publishing.

Ruschmann, P. (2009). Legalizing Marijuana . New York, NY: Chelsea House.

Russo, E. (2013). Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic

Potential. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Integrative Healing Press.

Stuck with your Research Paper?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

The Free Market Prioritizes Efficiency, Essay Example

Antidepressant Use in Pregnancy, Article Review Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Research Paper Samples & Examples

The risk of teenagers smoking, research paper example.

Words: 3102

Impacts on Patients and Healthcare Workers in Canada, Research Paper Example

Pages: 7

Words: 1839

Death by Neurological Criteria, Research Paper Example

Words: 2028

Ethical Considerations in End-Of-Life Care, Research Paper Example

Pages: 5

Words: 1391

Ethical Dilemmas in Brain Death, Research Paper Example

Words: 2005

Politics of Difference and the Case of School Uniforms, Research Paper Example

Pages: 2

Words: 631

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Oregon Is Recriminalizing Drugs. Here’s What Portland Learned.

Oregon’s governor has signed a measure to reimpose criminal penalties for hard drugs. Mayor Ted Wheeler of Portland talks about why the experiment “failed.”

By Mike Baker

Reporting from Portland, Ore.

When Oregon embarked on a landmark plan three years ago to decriminalize hard drugs , it wagered that a focus on treatment over punishment would create a new model for drug policy around the country.

But after a deluge of overdose deaths and frequent chaos in the streets of Portland, Gov. Tina Kotek signed into law on Monday a measure to restore criminal penalties for drug possession . It brought to an end a key portion of one of the nation’s most ambitious attempts to find alternatives other than jail for drug users, embodied in a 2020 voter initiative known as Measure 110 .

The rollback has supporters among a wide range of public officials, including Mayor Ted Wheeler of Portland, who found himself presiding over a series of crises since taking office in 2016. They included surging unsheltered homelessness, turbulent street protests, an exodus of downtown businesses, record numbers of homicides , the rapid spread of fentanyl and soaring overdose deaths .

Over the past year, Mr. Wheeler has set out to restore order. He has battled in court to ban daytime camping and tried to establish mass shelter locations (known in Portland as TASS sites) for those without housing. After initially supporting budget cuts to the police department , he has pushed to increase the law enforcement presence in the city and to crack down on crime.

And he concluded that it was time to restore criminal penalties for hard drug possession. Under the new law, people caught with small amounts of drugs like fentanyl and methamphetamine could face up to 180 days in jail, although lawmakers also built in a series of offramps that allow people in many cases to get treatment instead of confinement.

Mr. Wheeler sat down with The New York Times recently to discuss the shift on drug policy and his city’s future. Here are excerpts from the interview, edited and condensed for length and clarity.

There’s concern that bringing back criminal penalties is going back to the war on drugs. Is that what’s happening?

The war on drugs didn’t work. And so I hope the answer to that question is ‘no.’ And I hope this isn’t an excuse for people to turn their backs on the hard work of building a mental health system. We’re doing that, and we’re doing it at the very local level. At our TASS sites, we actually went out and we contracted at the municipal level with service providers who can provide basic behavioral health, substance-use disorder, domestic-violence treatment, job training. We’re creating those pathways.

So we appreciate that the legislature took the steps to return law enforcement and public safety tools to our first responders. I think that was necessary. But it’s also necessary to do the hard work to build the behavioral health infrastructure that was lacking.

When you look back to 2020, when Measure 110 passed, you have pretty wide support in Oregon. In Portland, three-quarters of voters in this area approved it. I’m curious how excited you were at the time about this new path that was emerging.

I was cautiously optimistic. I’ve been around enough to know that it’s always in the implementation.

Where do you think things most went wrong with the measure?

There’s no question that the state botched the implementation. And as I say, the timing couldn’t have been worse. In terms of the botched implementation: To decriminalize the use of drugs before you actually had the treatment services in place was obviously a huge mistake.

With the benefit of hindsight, the way that should have been structured is that it would create the mechanism for funding. The state would build up its behavioral health services, and when it reached a certain threshold, then they would decriminalize. It shouldn’t have gone the other way around.

The truth is that addiction rates and overdose rates skyrocketed. I personally do not attribute all of that to the passage of Measure 110. I think you can see national trends that would suggest that it wasn’t all ballot Measure 110, but it was very easy for the public to draw a line between the passage of Measure 110, the decriminalization of hard drugs, the increase in addiction and the increase in overdoses — and criminal activity associated with drugs.

Jordan Gale for The New York Times

You’ve said that you’ve been concerned about the future viability of this city . What does a worst-case scenario look like to you?

A worst-case scenario is a city where you don’t have laws that can be enforced. You don’t have alternative treatment for those who are ready to be treated. And you lose the public’s trust in your local institutions of democracy. That’s when things start to unwind. We’re not there. And I will tell you, from where I was sitting four years ago today, night and day difference. I’m very optimistic about the future of this city.

I hear your optimism.

I can see it. I mean, the city looks much better. Foot traffic is way up. Criminal activity is way down. With the opening of our TASS sites, with the expansion of our services at our safe-rest villages, we have a thousand new shelter beds we didn’t have even a year ago. Things have improved.

At the same time, in relatively recent polling, I think 81 percent said they feel unsafe going downtown in Portland at night . Are they wrong to feel that way?

I would never tell anybody they’re wrong to feel unsafe. If you feel unsafe, you feel unsafe. And that is your prerogative. What I would say is, objectively, crime rates are way down .

I was looking back when you first ran for office in 2015. One of your big messages was trying to deal with this nexus of homelessness and mental health issues and addiction. You had vowed at the time to eliminate unsheltered homelessness by 2018 . What went wrong?

Well, first of all, I’m not a great predictor of the future, it turns out. I don’t think anybody in 2015 could have possibly imagined where we would be today, as a city, as a state, as a nation. In 2015, P2P meth didn’t exist. Fentanyl didn’t exist. We hadn’t seen the explosion in the homeless population that we saw, particularly during the pandemic, but also leading up to the pandemic. What happened there, I think, honestly, is the long-term decisions we had made as a state to not invest in behavioral health, to not invest in treatment services, came home to roost as all of these crises hit simultaneously during Covid.

Do you look at yourself and say, “I have blame in this?”

I think we all have blame in this. Of course. We have somewhat reaped what we have sown. And I don’t just mean here in Portland, Oregon. I mean as a nation. Our nation has been very slow to accept behavioral health as an important issue. It’s starting to happen. It’s happening with particularly a younger generation being more willing to talk about it openly.

Along with this rollback of Measure 110, across the country there’s been a shift toward more conservative policies on policing and crime and drug policy. What do you think is motivating that shift?

People are exhausted from feeling like they’re under siege. They want order restored to their environment. And that makes perfect sense to me. These are very dislocating times. These are uncertain times for people economically, socially, in terms of the environment. There are so many existential threats. I mean, even despotism is seeming to grow worldwide. These are very uncertain times.

And you see it particularly amongst young people. I feel it. I think other people feel it, too. And so they have a minimum expectation that where they live is an orderly, safe, secure, prosperous place to be. And if they don’t see it, that is unsettling. They need to have that.

For other states or cities that are thinking about drug decriminalization — it might not be this year, maybe it’s down the line — what would be your guidance?

The treatment infrastructure has to be in place first.

Do you think there is a future where decriminalization could happen again? Or have we learned some other lesson about hard drugs in society?

I do believe there is a future where decriminalization in favor of treatment could happen, but it can’t happen if you don’t have the treatment, and that seems self-evident. There’s no question that what Oregon did was a bold experiment, and it failed. Let’s just be honest about that. It was botched in terms of the implementation. The timing was wrong, and frankly, the politics were wrong.

Going forward, could this experiment happen again? I don’t think anybody will completely decriminalize the use of drugs. I wouldn’t support it, personally, but the piece about providing enough behavioral health services is critically important. And again, in this country, we haven’t done that.

Mike Baker is a national reporter for The Times, based in Seattle. More about Mike Baker

• NORML FAcebook
• NORML Twitter
• NORML Insta

Working to Reform Marijuana Laws Since 1970

Hawaii: lawmakers move forward with legislation expanding marijuana decriminalization.

• Posted on April 8, 2024 April 9, 2024

Members of the House have approved legislation providing significantly reduced penalties for marijuana possession.

On Friday, House members approved SB 2487 on its third reading. Members of the Senate had previously approved an earlier version of the bill by unanimous vote. Senators must now revisit the bill because the House made several changes to the text.

As amended by the House, the bill decriminalizes the possession of up to one ounce of cannabis and/or up to five grams of cannabis concentrates — imposing a maximum fine of $25. (Under current law , possessing more than three grams of cannabis is defined as a criminal misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.) The bill also reduces penalties for the use of marijuana in public to a fine-only violation.

Possessing larger amounts of cannabis will remain a misdemeanor offense, but will be subject to reduced penalties.

“Every year, hundreds of Hawai’i residents are arrested for personal use quantities, creating criminal records that make it difficult to get housing and jobs,” Karen O’Keefe, director of state policies for the Marijuana Policy Project told Marijuana Moment . “It’s long past time Hawaii stops ruining lives over cannabis possession.”

Other legislative efforts addressing the expungement of cannabis-related criminal records remain pending. However, House members did table Senate-backed legislation that sought to regulate the adult-use marijuana market.

Additional information on pending legislation is available from NORML’s Take Action Center .

Share this:

Contact to listing owner.

Discover more from NORML

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• March Madness
• AP Top 25 Poll
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Germany has legalized possession of small amounts of cannabis. Not everyone is mellow about that.

Marijuana campaigners in Germany lit celebratory joints on Monday as the country liberalized rules on cannabis to allow possession of small amounts.

People smoke marijuana cigarette in front of the Brandenburg Gate during the ‘Smoke-In’ event in Berlin, Germany, Monday, April 1, 2024. Starting 1 April, Germany has legalised cannabis for personal use. As per the new law, Adults aged 18 and over will be allowed to carry up to 25 grams of cannabis for their own consumption. (AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi)

• Copy Link copied

People smoke marijuana in front of the Brandenburg Gate during the ‘Smoke-In’ event in Berlin, Germany, Monday, April 1, 2024. Starting 1 April, Germany has legalised cannabis for personal use. As per the new law, Adults aged 18 and over will be allowed to carry up to 25 grams of cannabis for their own consumption. (AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi)

A man takes a puff from a marijuana cigarette next to a placard reading “We don’t want to be offenders!” in front of the Brandenburg Gate during the “Smoke-In” event in Berlin, Germany, Monday, April 1, 2024. Starting 1 April, Germany has legalised cannabis for personal use. As per the new law, Adults aged 18 and over will be allowed to carry up to 25 grams of cannabis for their own consumption. (AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi)

A man takes a puff from a marijuana cigarette in front of the Brandenburg Gate and a placard reading “We don’t want to be offenders!” during the ‘Smoke-In’ event in Berlin, Germany, Monday, April 1, 2024. Starting 1 April, Germany has legalised cannabis for personal use. As per the new law, Adults aged 18 and over will be allowed to carry up to 25 grams of cannabis for their own consumption. (AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi)

A man takes a puff from a marijuana cigarette in front of the Brandenburg Gate during the ‘Smoke-In’ event in Berlin, Germany, Monday, April 1, 2024. Starting 1 April, Germany has legalised cannabis for personal use. As per the new law, Adults aged 18 and over will be allowed to carry up to 25 grams of cannabis for their own consumption. (AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi)

FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) — Marijuana campaigners in Germany lit celebratory joints on Monday as the country legalized possession of small amounts of cannabis for recreational use over objections from doctors and police.

The German Cannabis Association, which campaigned for the new law, staged a “smoke-in” at Berlin’s landmark Brandenburg Gate when the law took effect at midnight. Other public consumption events were scheduled throughout the country, including one in front of the Cologne cathedral and others in Hamburg, Regensburg and Dortmund.

Germany becomes the third European Union country to legalize cannabis for personal use after Malta and Luxembourg. The government argued that legalization would undermine criminal trade in the drug, guard against harmful impurities, and free police to pursue more serious crimes while providing for protections against use by under-18s.

The new law legalizes possession by adults of up to 25 grams (nearly 1 ounce) of marijuana for recreational purposes and allows individuals to grow up to three plants on their own. Use is prohibited within 100 meters (109 yards) of the entrance to a playground or school. That part of the legislation took effect Monday.

German residents age 18 and older will be allowed to join nonprofit “cannabis clubs” with a maximum 500 members each starting July 1. Individuals will be allowed to buy up to 25 grams per day, or a maximum 50 grams per month — a figure limited to 30 grams for people under age 21. Membership in multiple clubs won’t be allowed.

AP AUDIO: Germany has legalized possession of small amounts of cannabis. But the buzz may not last.

AP correspondent Charles de Ledesma reports Germany has legalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana - but buzz may be short-lived.

The clubs’ costs will be covered by membership fees, which are to be staggered according to how much marijuana members use.

The legislation also calls for an amnesty under which sentences for cannabis-related offenses that will no longer be illegal are to be reviewed and in many cases reversed. Regional authorities worry that the judicial system will be overburdened by thousands of cases.

Over the past 20 years, the general trend has been for European Union member countries to reduce cannabis penalties in various ways, according to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.

Those could include making possession a civil offense or diverting offenders to treatment instead of the criminal justice system, or less strict enforcement. In the Netherlands, cannabis remains illegal but sale of small amounts in so-called coffee shops is tolerated by the public prosecution service. A number of countries in Europe permit medical cannabis under differing sets of rules.

The law was passed by the current coalition of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’ Social Democrats, the Greens and the pro-business Free Democrats, against opposition from some of Germany’s federal states and the center-right Christian Democrats.

Christian Democratic leader Friedrich Merz has vowed that his party will reverse the legislation if it wins national elections expected in the fall of 2025. Any likely new government coalition, however, would include one of the parties that supported the law.

Leading garden stores surveyed by the dpa news agency indicated they would not be adding cannabis plants to their horticultural offerings. The German Medical Association opposed the law, saying it could have “grave consequences” for the “developmental and life prospects of young people in our country.” So did the union representing German police officers, which called it “the wrong signal.”

4/20 is coming up, but Indiana stoners are out of luck. Indianapolis ranks one of worst cities for marijuana

4/20, a beloved holiday for cannabis users to spark up and pass the pipe, is quickly approaching, but Indianapolis residents and potheads in the area are out of luck.

Despite over half of people preferring marijuana over alcohol if only one could be legal in the U.S., according to a study from the American Addiction Centers , Indiana isn't a great place for the magical plant.

Indiana marijuana laws: Legalizing cannabis prevents opioid deaths, but Suzanne Crouch blames Biden instead

Indianapolis ranks as one of worst cities nationally for weed

According to Real Estate Witch, the organization worked with Leafly to rank the 50 largest U.S. cities in order from best to worst for stoners. Metrics taken into consideration included the legality of cannabis, the number of dispensaries per 100,000 residents, number of medical cannabis doctors per 100,000 residents, the average cost of a high-quality ounce, the price of a medium-quality ounce and more.

Indianapolis was No. 41 on the list, placing in the bottom ten cities. With no plans for the legalization of medical or recreational cannabis, the city is significantly behind when it comes to the marijuana movement. According to the website, 37 states have already legalized weed for medicinal use, with 24 states and the District of Columbia allowing for recreational use as well.

Based on the data, Indiana residents have 0.3 marijuana retailers per 100,000 residents and 0.0 medical cannabis doctors per 100,000. The average high-end ounce in the city costs nearly $335, with a medium-end ounce averaging around $230.

Indiana marijuana laws: Ohio voted to legalize recreational marijuana. Why Indiana is unlikely to do the same

Best cities for weed in the U.S.

According to the study, the top ten cities for weed are:

• Denver, Colorado
• Portland, Oregon
• Las Vegas, Nevada
• Buffalo, New York
• Baltimore, Maryland
• Phoenix, Arizona
• Seattle, Washington
• Sacramento, California
• Kansas City, Missouri
• Providence, Rhode Island

Worst cities for weed in the U.S.

The worst cities for marijuana in the U.S. include:

• Louisville, Kentucky
• Dallas, Texas
• Atlanta, Georgia
• Houston, Texas
• Birmingham, Alabama
• Nashville, Tennessee
• Charlotte, North Carolina
• Milwaukee, Wisconsin
• Memphis, Tennessee
• Indianapolis, Indiana

When is 4/20?

4/20 Day is celebrated on April 20 each year by cannabis users, producers, advocates and more, according to National Day Calendar.

What is 4/20?

4/20 Day is a celebration of the green, mind-altering substance of marijuana by users, manufacturers, advocates and those new to the cannabis community. In the past, and in places where it's currently illegal, the day is used to fight and advocate for the legalized medicinal and recreational use of the plant.

The day originally began in the 1970s in California to fight for the decriminalization, legalization and liberalization of marijuana, and developed alongside other major drug movements like Ann Arbor, Michigan's "Hash Bash," which began in 1972 in response to the arrest of John Sinclair for the possession of two joints. Such movements led to the decriminalization of the substance in many states throughout the 1970s, and 4/20 didn't become a mainstream celebration for stoners until the 1990s.