Marijuana Legalization in the United States

In the United States, marijuana legalization is one among the policy issues that are widely debated. As such, numerous publications capturing diverse opinions have been made. Both critics and supporters of the legalization proposal have put forth equally compelling arguments to defend their positions regarding why marijuana should or should not be decriminalized. This makes it somewhat difficult to make a conclusive ruling on whether or not the drug ought to be legalized. As observed by Larkin (73), “what someone thinks of marijuana can depend on who that person is”; botanists view marijuana as a plant, while international affairs students understand marijuana as a very popular recreational drug. On the other hand, narcotics officers and some judges view marijuana as contraband and a crime. These are just a few examples illustrating the controversy that surrounds marijuana. On the positive side, marijuana has valuable economic and medicinal benefits that could justify its legalization; on the other hand, however, excessive consumption of the drug can cause hitherto non-existing health problems. In light of these conflicting facts, the best way to tackle the dilemma is to acknowledge that marijuana is a necessary evil that societies should learn to tolerate; hence the need for the government to adopt a multi-faceted approach focused on promoting safe use, production, and distribution of marijuana.

Despite marijuana being considered an illicit drug in most states in America, the fact that prohibition has proved to be a counterproductive effort indicates that it is time the society learnt to tolerate the drug and be guided on safe use. In other words, it is time to shift focus from prohibition to regulation, especially in reference to the report that although the drug has been prohibited for close to a century, it is Canada’s “most widely used illicit substance” (Hajizadeh 453). In the U.S., similarly, marijuana prohibition has only produced worse outcomes, including organized crime, waste of government resources, and increased consumption of even stronger marijuana (Nathan, Clark & Elders 1746). The lessons learnt from Canada’s response to the issue should be applied in the U.S., realizing that legalizing marijuana would mean that adults can use the drug without being subjected to any legal fines. In order to enjoy the greater tax revenue and weakening of the black market resulting from legalization, the government should develop relevant strategies to ensure that marijuana is available to adults only and that it is taken in safe, recommended dosages to avert risks to human health.

Instead of spending hard-earned resources on prohibiting marijuana, the government should invest more in educating and empowering citizens on safe production and consumption of the drug. Available literature suggests that criminalizing marijuana is a futile exercise. In the words of Schwartz (E137), “prohibition has failed miserably at reducing marijuana smoking, and criminalization has had dire consequences”. This serves as a wakeup call for the government to accept that the society now deems the costs of marijuana use acceptable. More significantly, it is clear that attempting to aggressively prohibit marijuana use cannot deter supply of “an easily cultivated drug that can be grown almost anywhere for which consumers have an enduring demand on a widespread basis” (Larkin 77). For this reason, the government must embrace the reality that marijuana is not an ordinary commodity; resources that are currently being spent on prohibiting the drug should therefore be shifted to public education policies. The aim of such policies should be educating adults and empowering a free society that can make sound decisions regarding producing, selling, and consuming marijuana.

Besides offering public education on safe marijuana use, the government should also develop and strictly enforce measures to regulate the marijuana business. Specific measures that would help mitigate the adverse impacts of marijuana use include government oversight of all sales, production, distribution, and testing of cannabis across the country. As recommended by Nathan et al. (1747), the government must enforce a law requiring that cannabis products are adequately labelled, indicating the quantity of psychoactive elements, other ingredients, and dosing information. In the same way, strict restrictions must be imposed regarding marketing as well as advertising of marijuana. Specifically, the government must completely ban any packaging together with advertising that appears to target underage users. As Nathan et al. (1747) suggest, child-resistant packaging should be used for all marijuana products. These measures will reduce the incidence of underage persons accessing and using marijuana.

Maintaining flexibility in the legal framework is needed to handle any new challenges that could emerge following legalization of marijuana. Although marijuana has been established to have therapeutic benefits particularly in pain management, regular usage is linked to health risks including addiction, depression, and anxiety (Hajizadeh 455). At the same time, some physicians argue that marijuana does not provide unique, statistically significant remedy for pain when compared to ordinary pain-relieving medications such as ibuprofen (Pratt et al. 26). Concerns have also been raised about marijuana-related mortality, the argument being that increased consumption of the drug could be a cause of reckless driving, leading to a high incidence of motor vehicle accidents (Hajizadeh 455). These negative outcomes indicate that neither prohibition nor decriminalization alone is the solution; the government must be prepared to review and adjust the system of criminal justice to deal with all distinct issues arising from the intersection between the new marijuana laws and the statutes governing reckless driving. More precisely, the government must critically evaluate the existing legal framework in terms of ability to handle any conflicting, controversial issues that may arise as it moves forward to legalize marijuana.

With the divergent opinions regarding the marijuana legalization debate, it would be worthwhile for the government to consider engaging experts in discussions about the best way forward. As mentioned, legalizing marijuana has pros and cons that are equally significant and may perfectly be summarized in the statement that “choosing prohibition means choosing black markets [while] choosing legalization means choosing greater drug dependence [and health risks]” (Calkins 8). Equally important, marijuana is a real problem in the U.S. that cannot possibly be avoided or ignored. What this means is that the only aspect over which the government has discretion is to choose “what kind of drug problem it wants” (Calkins 8). Making this decision is quite an uphill task that calls for sober minds to honestly and critically assess the tradeoffs and develop sensible policies that will ensure that the legalization of marijuana is managed as safely and responsibly as possible. An assessment of the tradeoffs can only be done if the government encourages debates and inquiries among experts.

In conclusion, there is sufficient evidence that although marijuana legalization is a contentious issue, it is grossly pretentious and dangerous to ignore the problem and continue prohibiting the drug. Much as critics may argue that the widely-quoted medicinal benefits of the drug are exaggerated and that marijuana poses serious health risks, the truth is that marijuana is very widely consumed in the United States. Failed efforts by the legal system to criminalize the drug illustrate that it is time to change the way the government approaches the issue altogether. Owing to arguments that marijuana is not only therapeutic but also has invaluable economic benefits, a useful starting point for approaching the legalization debate would be to recognize and acknowledge the drug as an out-of-the-ordinary commodity that the society must learn to live with. Disagreements exist as to the benefits of legalizing the drug, but it is evident that abstaining from discussions regarding the way forward is the greatest mistake that may be made at the moment. Having established that prohibition is not the solution and that legalization alone is not enough, the best approach would be to engage policymakers, physicians, and other stakeholders in deliberating how best to promote safe use of marijuana. Emphasis should be on promoting safety, which can be achieved through public education and regulating the industry by laying down standards governing production, labeling, advertising, and packaging. In addition, the government must be prepared to address any unforeseen legal issues arising from legalizing marijuana, such as increased motor vehicle accident-related deaths. This would necessitate regularly reviewing the legal system. All these recommendations may be summed up in one sentence: marijuana should certainly be legalized, but in a holistic manner that takes into consideration the positives and negatives and focuses on promoting safety and responsibility in the production, consumption, and distribution of the drug.

Works Cited

Caulkins, Jonathan P. “The real dangers of marijuana.” National Affairs (2016).

Hajizadeh, Mohammad. “Legalizing and regulating marijuana in Canada: review of potential economic, social, and health impacts.” International Journal of Health Policy and Management 5.8 (2016): 453-456.

Larkin Jr., Paul J. “Introduction to a Debate: Marijuana: Legalize, Decriminalize, or Leave the Status Quo in Place.” Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law 23 (2018): 73-83.

Nathan, David L., H. Westley Clark, and Joycelyn Elders. “The physicians’ case for marijuana legalization.” American Journal of Public Health 107.11 (2017): 1746-1747.

Pratt, Misty, Stevens Adrienne, Micere Thuku, Claire Butler, Becky Skidmore … and Brian Hutton. “Benefits and harms of medical cannabis: a scoping review of systematic reviews.” Systematic Reviews 8.1 (2019): 1-35. Schwartz, Robert. “Legalize marijuana without the smoke.” CMAJ 189.4 (2017): E137-E138