More handpicked essays just for you.
Argument paper for legalization of marijuana
Why should we legalize marijuana
Argument for medical marijuana
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Argument paper for legalization of marijuana
Charles Stimson’s “Marijuana Should Not Be Legalized” is an essay that argues against the legalization in California, as well as the common arguments that “pro-marijuana activist” use to further their agenda. He insists, “Marijuana is a dangerous substance that should remain illegal under state law.” as well as asserting that most marijuana activists simply do not understand what decriminalization will entail. In his argument, he identifies the five arguments activist use and attempts to refute them one by one, calling them “bold claims”. The false or disputed claims he list activist as believing are that marijuana is safe and nonaddictive, marijuana and alcohol comparisons, criminalization of marijuana has not worked, government efforts could be best served doing something else, and marijuana sales taxes would be a good thing, regardless of the “social costs”. While Stimson does make multiple valid points about how marijuana legalization can negatively affect a society, in his argument, I believe he is guilty of …show more content…
Furthermore, upon asking “police and prosecutors, judges and politicians” how they feel about the criminalization of marijuana, he found that most disagreed for the penalties. He then shifts the argument towards the medical uses of marijuana, stating “every state ballot initiative to legalize medical marijuana has been approved….”, even though federal law still prohibits this. Lastly, he cites the “coffee shops” in Netherlands as an example of successful regulation. I generally agree with his argument, especially the aspect of fining rather just complete liberation. This makes it more responsible than the typical “consenting adult can do
Husak admits that there are gray areas between this recreational approach and the universally reviled drug abuse. However, Husak is right in saying that drug use that occurs in the ghetto is not recreational, and goes on to explain that rich white people are even more likely to use certain drugs, notably ... ... middle of paper ... ... enough time explaining the benefits of legalization. I agree with his assertion that the burden of proof should lie on the heads of those limiting our freedoms and therefore I personally am not bothered by his attack strategy, but in the grand scheme of trying to further his cause Husak would be served well by discussing the issue in terms of why legalization would help our society.
She points out that many harder drugs first started out with the use of drugs and alcohol. Her conclusion to this paragraph and to the article was, “On top of all of this, as mentioned above, nearly half the country has already tried pot which is more than how many Americans know who Jennifer Lawrence is and much much more than the percentage of Americans who are left-handed,” (10). Jacques is implying that since it is a common theme among many Americans to smoke marijuana, it should be legalized. Her analogy does not have any reputable numbers to back it up, therefore, a reader will have a hard time believing this bit of information. This is a logical fallacy within her argument. There are plenty of things that are common within this country that cannot be legalized. There are a great number of people who run stop signs everyday, but it does not mean a law should be passed saying it is okay to speed right through them without hesitation. This is a weak ending to Jacques’s argument and does not leave the reader confidently on her
Those opposed to the legalization of the cannabis plant in a September 11th 2003 article claim that with legalization of cannabis will come further problems. They say that legalization would lead to greater drug use especially with children as well as drug trafficking from legalized areas. They claim the tobacco and alcohol cause enough problems and there is no reason to add a new product into the mix. The claim is also made that drugs such as cannabis lead to poverty, crime, and violence. They argue that although the drug war cannot be completely successful it is worth it to slow down drug trade and that truly very few people are brought up on a simple possession charge of cannabis. Finally they make the claim that if cannabis and other drugs were legalized it would prevent court ordered addiction treatment. I understand the basis of all these claims and understand where they come from. Many arguments are made generally about the legalization of all illegal drugs including cannabis and I do agree that drugs other than cannabis should be kept illegal for all the reasons listed above. Where I find fault with the expose is the unfair grouping of cannabis into the article.
The article “Legalize marijuana? Obama was right to say no” by Bernadine Healey was interesting. Her facts seem reliable as she is a cardiologist and at one point president of the Red Cross. Bernadine Healey was able to persuade her audience by her strong points and giving evidence using logos, pathos, and ethos. She was also able to be respectful in her counter argument and was able to bring her audience against marijuana. The main thesis of the article is that policymakers should not ever legalize marijuana as it would become a great harm to young people’s health. The main reason she was able to persuade why it’s bad for the young, was she gave scientific research, the bad effect of marijuana, and how it can lead to illness.
The controversy of legalizing marijuana has been raging for quite a while in America. From some people pushing it for medical purposes to potheads just wanting to get high legally. Marijuana has been used for years as a popular drug for people who want to get a high. All this time it has been illegal and now it looks as if the drug may become legal. There has been heated debate by many sides giving there opinion in the issue. These people are not only left wing liberals either. Richard Brookhiser, a National Review Senior editor is openly supportive of medical marijuana yet extremely conservative in his writing for National Review (Brookhiser 27). He is for medical marijuana since he used it in his battle with testicular cancer. He says "I turned to [marijuana] when I got cancer because marijuana gives healthy people an appetite, and prevents people who are nauseated from throwing up. "(Brookhiser 27) Cancer patients are not the only benefactors from the appetite enhancer in marijuana, but so are any other nauseous people. Arizona and California have already passed a law allowing marijuana to be used as a medicinal drug. Fifty Six percent of the California voters voted for this law. "We've sent a message to Washington," says Dennis Peron. "They've had 25 years of this drug was, and they've only made things worse." (Simmons 111) The Arizona proposition garnished an even wider margin of separation between the fore's an against in a sixty five percent support tally. Ethan Nadelmann insists that " these propositions are not about legalization or decriminalization. They're about initiating some non radical, commonsense approaches to drug policy." General Barry McCaffery disagrees saying, "I...
...ke of argument - that marijuana has no medical value whatsoever, despite the fact that it has a several thousand year history of medical use and that a prescription drug is made from its primary active ingredient. Let's assume - for the sake of argument - that all these medical marijuana patients are just fooling themselves. Even in that case, what would we stand to gain as a society by punishing sick people and putting them through an already overloaded criminal justice system? Even if they are deluding themselves- what benefit is there to prosecuting sick people?"
The debate between prohibitionists and citizens who believe in the legalization of illegal drugs provide many arguments. Since there are many drugs that are illegal there are many different arguments on what should be legal and what shouldn’t. The biggest debate, and the argument that I will mostly focus on, is the reform of marijuana. Prohibitionists argue that marijuana has adverse health, safety, social, academic, economic, and behavioral consequences (Goldberg 183). Not only do they claim that it causes all of those consequences but it also can cause harm to others including family and friends (Rachels 228). The obvious argument in harming others is driving under the influence of the drug but proh...
Legalization or decriminalization of marijuana is opposed by a vast majority of American’s and people around the world. Leaders in Marijuana prevention, education, treatment, and law enforcement adamantly oppose the substance, as do many political leaders. However, pro-drug advocacy groups, who support the use of illegal drugs, are making headlines. They are influencing decision making thru legislation and having a significant impact on the national policy debate here in the United States and in other countries. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) is the oldest drug user lobby in the U.S. It has strong ties to the Libertarian party, the Drug Policy Foundation, and the American Civil Liberties Union. These groups use a variety of strategies, which range from outright legalization to de facto legalization under the guise of medicalization, control legalization through taxation. However, drugs like marijuana are addicting and should not be legalized. Marijuana should not be legalized because it can cause overwhelming damage to the society as a whole. As Bennett says, “Drug use- especially heavy drug use- destroys human character. It destroys dignity and autonomy, it burns away the sense of responsibility, it subverts productivity, it makes a mockery of virtue” (Husak 663). People throughout the nation have witnessed law changes regarding the possession of marijuana to its physical and social effects on society. Marijuana should not be legalized for the following reasons namely for the legal, physical, and social aspects of its use.
Ever since marijuana’s introduction to the United States of America in 1611, controversy of the use and legalization of the claimed-to-be Schedule I drug spread around the nation. While few selective states currently allow marijuana’s production and distribution, the remaining states still skepticize the harmlessness and usefulness of this particular drug; therefore, it remains illegal in the majority of the nation. The government officials and citizens of the opposing states believe the drug creates a threat to citizens due to its “overly-harmful” effects mentally and physically and offers no alternate purposes but creating troublesome addicts hazardous to society; however, they are rather misinformed about marijuana’s abilities. While marijuana has a small amount of negligible effects to its users, the herbal drug more importantly has remarkable health benefits, and legalizing one of the oldest and most commonly known drugs would redirect America’s future with the advantages outweighing the disadvantages.
The rationale behind the Dutch parliament’s decision was that the use of marijuana among the Dutch population was increasing, and rather than bog down the legal system, Dutch politicians decided to decriminalize marijuana (Bransten, para. 4). The other benefit of the policy, as the Dutch politicians and general public see it, is that “it isolates the hard drug market from the...
...ed that legalization does not result in the best possible outcome; instead the best solution would be decriminalization of marijuana and legalization of medical marijuana. This solution is not only more feasible than complete legalization but also can be argued to be the more ethical solution. This is because it encompasses most of the advantages to legalization while reducing many of the risks substantially. The changes we will see in the future regarding this issue will “be shaped by whether the various experiments with legalization, decriminalization, and medical marijuana are deemed successes or failures” (Dionne and Galston). The nature of ethics clearly shows that there is never a definite course of action that should be taken, but through deliberation and analysis using the ethical theories, one is able to produce the best solution given the circumstances.
Millions of people are suffering needlessly because of the prohibition against using medical marijuana, Rosenthal and Kubby assert. They conclude that marijuana should be decriminalized. ”(Rosenthal, Kubby) Today, I am going to help you understand the real benefits of marijuana. By the time that we are through, you will be agreeing with me and will want to be a part of the effort needed by citizens to legalize such a beneficial drug.
Many people crave the moment where they can just sit down, relax, and enjoy some free time. They could perhaps take a nice walk in a park, or possibly sit down and enjoy a movie on T.V. However, a large sum of people nationwide chooses to participate in a certain recreational activity to find their relaxation: smoking Marijuana. In fact, “Washington and Colorado are the first to allow adults to use the drug for recreational purposes” (Legalizing Marijuana, par 1). Unfortunately for half of our nation’s population, the use of the plant, Cannabis, was deemed illegal. “Before 1937, marijuana was freely bought, sold, grown, and smoked in the United States. Since that time, all of these activities have been illegal, but many groups and individuals have fought to decriminalize marijuana” (Rich, par 1). I find this preposterous! I believe that the federal government should look at what the people want, and pass the law making Marijuana legal, but of course having regulations to go along with it. Not only shall it please the people of the United States, but our economy could greatly benefit from legalizing Cannabis and it is an aid towards medical treatment. It would be to our nation’s best interest to have legislation legalize marijuana at not only the state level, but as a national level as well.
There has always been controversy about marijuana and the affects it has on health and the issue of legalization. Some people believe it is very destructive to one’s health, and yet others feel the complete opposite about it. Is Marijuana truly harmful to one’s health? “Marijuana, the Deceptive Drug”, written by George Bierson, was published in the Massachusetts News. In this article, Bierson determines that marijuana is harmful in many ways. He seems to think that it damages the brain, the reproductive system, and also contributes to the halt of production in the immune system. Bierson also tries to persuade the reader that marijuana is a “gateway drug” that leads to larger drugs in the future. However, by conducting research of my own, I have come to the conclusion that Bierson’s article simply lacks truth.
As you know, Marijuana is the most frequently used illegal drug in the U.S causing a huge controversy in today’s society. I think that in some ways not legalizing marijuana could hurt us and our country. I know that you, as a member of the CALM, feel very strongly on your opinion of legalizing marijuana. The CALM does make very convincing arguments about crime, youth, and health with the use of marijuana. While some of these arguments can be persuasive to many, I think that my following propositions on crime, health, and medicinal marijuana also provide a swaying argument.