Legalization of Marijuana for Recreational Use-Free-Samples

Question: Discuss about the Legalization of Marijuana for Recreational Use. Answer: Marijuana or hemp is a plant that is believed to be one of the earliest plants to be cultivated. Recorded history reports its use for various purposes, ranging from its medicinal usage to use for making fabrics and ropes to recreational and spiritual uses among many cultures. The plant however began to be banned gradually and from 19th century onwards governments began to ban the plant owing to its recreational narcotic usage which hampered the functioning of its users. Marijuana and its use has been a point of contention in the modern medical world for a long time with a polarized view on the topic. Restrictions on research about Marijuana has deterred the progression of the debate. Nonetheless, Marijuana today is considered one of the safer drugs with a promising potential for medicinal use. However there still exists a debate on the matter in the scholarly sphere. Following much debate, the decriminalization of the drug was first initiated by the Dutch government which officially categorized it as a safer drug. California decriminalized Marijuana in 2001 and then Canada relaxed its regulatory law on Marijuana to legalize its use for medical purposes. Uruguay however became the first country to completely legalize Marijuana in 2013 and now Canada is seen to be gearing up to officially, completely legalize the drug as well as opposed to decriminalization. This had sparked controversy and debate in the public, political and medical spheres with majority voting for the move. The statement of thesis states that complete legalization of Marijuana is the correct move. This paper thus argues for the legalization of marijuana for recreational as well as medical and research purposes. The first point for the assertion takes into account the fact that Marijuana has been used for its medicinal properties by mankind for at least as long as recorded in history with large scale restrictions coming into the picture only in the last century or two due to those who may abuse it. Even so, harmful effects of Marijuana abuse pales in comparison some of the effects to even some prescribed drugs that exist in the market today such as Oxycodone. The death rate per 100,000 owing to legally available opioid poisoning was found to be 7.9 in 2016 in Canada, as per the Public Health Agency of Canada, as compared to cannabis which has no records of overdose in history whatsoever (Public Health Canada, 2018). Cannabis, in fact, has been stated to be useful for pain relief both by the ancient Chinese as well as in some contemporary medical reports (Brand Zhao, 2017). Regarding the prevalence of its abuse, Philippe Lucas, conducted a survey in 2013 and found that out of all the anonymo us respondents, 41% use cannabis as a substitute for alcohol, 36.1% substitute it for other illicit substances and 67.8% substitute is for prescription drugs. It was found by the Lucas that the three main reasons behind such preference of cannabis over these other substances of potential abuse were that withdrawal is less for cannabis, it has fewer side effects and it is easier for them to manage the symptoms. Therefore it was suggested that cannabis is a better alternative to these other substances health-wise.75.5% of the respondents had cited cannabis as a substitute for at least one substance of abuse (Lucas, 2013). Therefore recreational and medicinal use of cannabis would pose much less risks health wise than some of the already substances that are legally available as well as could decrease the markets of the more potentially harmful substances. Additionally, in comparison to other recreational substances such as tobacco and alcohol which are freely and legally available in t he market, which young people who are deemed a vulnerable group to cannabis, use much more than they use marijuana, marijuana proves to be much less physically damaging, mentally debilitating or lethal as per scientific studies. They argued that when such prohibitions are not placed on those substances then doing so for cannabis does not make sense (Crpault, Rehm Fischer, 2016). Spithoff, Emerson Spithoff (2015), in their peer reviewed article raised a very interesting point highlighting how the UN Drug Report in 2011,reported that . They emphasized how setting up a legal framework with focus on public health promotion and protection which comes with legalization aided governments to better control use and abuse of the recreational drug, pointing out that among the 180.6 million marijuana users, most of them resided in countries where the drug is illegal. Having said that, UNICEF in 2013 reported Canada as being the country with highest adolescents who use cannabis with 28% of the population falling into that category being a user. They pointed out that pre-existing regulations on Tobacco and Alcohol could prove to be valuable in the framing of such policies (Spithoff, Emerson Spithoff, 2015). Drawing on the fact that such a significant figure of users exist in these countries where the drug is actually illegal, it is well understood that such demand allow s the black market to thrive and this has in fact been pointed out as one of the major reasoning to support the legalization process of cannabis is Canada by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in their proposed Cannabis Policy Framework(CPF) as the nation has been gearing up to push the legislation to legalize the plant for recreational use in addition to medicinal use as it had done back in 2001 (Crpault, Rehm Fischer, 2016). (Crpault, Rehm Fischer, 2016). Crpault, Rehm Fischer (2015) emphasized through their arguments that owing to prohibition, the harms caused by cannabis abuse actually expounds social and individual harm on top of the health risks it poses. Drawing upon the fact that despite prohibition of the substance, such a large user base has been detected in the country, with 14% of adults and 23% of high school students having had used cannabis in 2013 alone as per population surveys in Ontario it is argued that the current laws have failed to curb the problem and instead has failed to counter the black market, increasing influence of anti-social and criminal elements. Dealing with the cost of implementing prohibition and other related law enforcement procedures has been seen to be very costly with estimated cost including police intervention, judicial cost and correction being reported to be as high as $1.2 billion in 2002 alone (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 2014). Therefore, a possible remedy in the form of decr iminalization that is prohibition with civil penalties instead of criminal ones, however might fail to regulate cannabis, rendering users unaware of potency or quality and deters healthcare and education personnel to effectively intervene and engage in prevention and treatment. Most importantly decriminalization, would naturally lead to commercialization but restrict the government from additional regulatory authority and defeating the purpose of the rationale to the approach altogether. Additionally, it has been inferred from the jurisdictions that have legislation decriminalizing recreational cannabis possession that corruption among law enforcement who take undue advantage of the law by convicting and arresting people in an unjustified manner, giving rise to the phenomenon of net widening. Moreover penalties in the form of heavy fines of $1000 that comes with being convicted of possession in Canada place burden on people who are from a low income background disproportionately and this could contribute to cases of secondary criminalization where by these people might be forced to commit other crimes to pay off the fine that has been imposed upon them. Compared to decriminalization, legalization would therefore eliminate more than $1 billion of expense on prohibition laws allowing the fund to be directed to other spheres of public development and the regulated commercialization could also work to increase the income of the country through taxation (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 2014).It should also be considered that such taxation and price control measures could work to deter usage to some degree as well giving further leverage to the authorities. It is expected that in a jurisdiction where production and distribution is legal and aptly regulated, criminal involvement should decrease significantly. Despite the non-lethal nature of cannabis, there however do exist certain health concerns which could be categorized as chronic or acute that may affect the population with special concern being associated with developing mental faculties of adolescents and pregnant women as pointed out by many scholarly papers, Wayne Hall(2015) being notable among them. He has extensively discussed about the research done on the adverse effects of marijuana abuse in the last two decades. It is to be noted as per the author has pointed out that, cannabis based on dosage could impair reaction-time, processing powers as well as motor coordination among users and this has been found to increase risk of car crash while driving under influence to 2 to 3 times which is however much less than how alcohol affects people under influence. Even so, it has contributed to around 2.5% behind cause of traffic deaths on France. This rate has been found to increase when users also indulge in other substances along wi th cannabis as if often the case Adolescents in particular have actually been found to be especially vulnerable to the health implication of cannabis usage and therefore are strongly advised to keep away. It is already established that adolescents who are regular users have an association with those who have lower educational qualification that their peers who are not regular users. Dependence has also been found to be an issue with 1 out of 10 users reporting to have developed dependence syndrome and the odds seem to increase to 1 out of 6 among those who report to have begun using during adolescence. Even Netherlands have been found to have consistently reported a similar issue with dependence despite legislation of legalization and implementation regulatory policy, indicating that this particular concern could remain a problem despite CPFs recommendations .Adolescents being a major target group in Canada as users and adding to that the increased risks that is posed by cannabis us e does in fact put into question the prudence in removing prohibition. There has also found to be correlation between cannabis use and other mental disorders such as anxiety and depression, with regular use during adolescence doubling risk of being diagnosed with schizophrenia or other psychotic symptoms during adulthood Again, marijuana has been deemed as a gateway drug by some basing their claims upon the observation that marijuana users often have been seen to be more likely to use other more dangerous drugs. Additionally, acute users fall under risk of developing chronic bronchitis and those who are middle aged fall under risk of myocardial infraction (Hall, 2015). Kalant (2016), in response to the CPF expressed a number of points as critique, asserting that CPFs take on the matter lacks sufficient evidence and ignores certain considerations to arrive at the conclusions and recommendations that have been put forth. Kalant again points out the increased risks that legalization would expose the vulnerable group of adolescents and young adults and in addition points out that although legalization sounds promising, it is a flawed approach and that the cost of its application could might as well trump the promised potential benefits. Contrary to that, Kalant pointed out that certain surveys suggested that use may increase among adolescents and although the increase might be minimised it still cannot be definitively determined that others might not come under peer influence and the expectations for restriction might fall short. Additionally he pointed out that the social cost of prohibition is determined not by the law itself but by the manner of enforcement of the law and highlighted that out of 17641 arrested for possession in Canada , 8045 were ultimately let off without any charges whatsoever and only 890 were found to be charged. This he says suggests that perhaps a lax system of law enforcement could be responsible for the perceived failure on part of the law. He also pointed out states like Australia, Portugal and UK aside from Canada where the frequency of cases of marijuana abuse being diverted to the health care professionals have been increasing, suggesting that perhaps bringing in legalization is unnecessary. Another point to be considered that he highlighted is that price regulation and taxation brought about upon legalization may not be effective in deterring use by continuing to pushing low income users who cannot afford the elevated prices to illicit sources. Finally, countering Crpault, Rehm Fischer (2015) on their position on decriminalization as being a half measure as expounded by the Cannabis policy framework, he pointed out that states who have just decriminalized as opposed to legalization of cannabis have not seen any increase in usage and that states which have prohibited it to have depicted lower rates of abuse than other available drugs, it is argued that legalization might not be able to make a significant dent in usage after all. Furthermore, pointing out that legalization alone cannot address the health harms of cannabis and thus requires additional regulatory laws, he said that perhaps a decriminalization alternative with such additional laws could prove to be a safer bet. Adding to that is the fact that t. Instead, Kalant suggested that perhaps a policy which takes into account the morals and perceived hopes of society would be better suited to address this issue in particular. However, despite these concerns, as Fischer, Rehm Crpault (2016), in response to Kalants criticism, highlighted, that the argument that lack of complete evidence should deter legislation ought to consider the move as an opportunity to collect the relevant data and gauge the difference. The authors maintain that whatever leverage that legalization would offer far outweigh what decriminalization could. Rehm, Crpault Fischer (2017) in another paper had drawn particular attention to the fact that t They emphasized how important these regulations are and based on their research asserted that just as successful implementation could serve to be fruitful failure could lead to yet another situation like the US states which legalized the drug where they have found to have failed to generate positive results. The pros and cons are thus well established and a well-informed legislation that is being geared up on basis of such scientific queries and evidences could do well to set the premise for a most important social exercise that could set a new standard of administrative control. Kalants position on relying on the perceived broader ideals and hopes of society as a guideline to policy framing instead of that based on evidence which is no doubt indirect but incremental however betrays inherent bias and favouring status quo whereas opposing novel untested policy options. Risks are a natural part of scientific research and breakthrough of any sort and the authors thus assert that such logic would have prevented many landmark achievements in human society ranging from space travel and normalization of LGBT and abortion rights (Rehm, Crpault Fischer, 2016). Hence, agreeing to all these points, this paper puts forth legalisation as a much needed policy change and the best bet based on the available evidence. References Brand, E. J., Zhao, Z. (2017). Cannabis in Chinese medicine: are some traditional indications referenced in ancient literature related to cannabinoids?.Frontiers in pharmacology,8, 108. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (2014). Cannabis policy framework. Retrieved https://www.camh.ca/en/hospital/about_camh/influencing_public_policy/Documents/CAMHCannabisPolicyFramework.pdf Crpault, J. F., Rehm, J., Fischer, B. (2015). The cannabis policy framework by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health: A proposal for a public health approach to cannabis policy in Canada.International Journal of Drug Policy,34, 1-4. Fischer, B., Rehm, J., Crpault, J. F. (2016). Realistically furthering the goals of public health by cannabis legalization with strict regulation: Response to Kalant.International Journal of Drug Policy,34, 11-16. Hall, W. (2015). What has research over the past two decades revealed about the adverse health effects of recreational cannabis use?.Addiction,110(1), 19-35. Kalant, H. (2016). A critique of cannabis legalization proposals in Canada.International Journal of Drug Policy,34, 5-10. Lucas, P., Reiman, A., Earleywine, M., McGowan, S. K., Oleson, M., Coward, M. P., Thomas, B. (2013). Cannabis as a substitute for alcohol and other drugs: A dispensary-based survey of substitution effect in Canadian medical cannabis patients.Addiction Research Theory,21(5), 435-442. Public Health Canada. (2018).National report: Apparent opioid-related deaths in Canada (December 2017) - Canada.ca.Canada.ca. Retrieved 30 March 2018, from https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/healthy-living/apparent-opioid-related-deaths-report-2016-2017-december.html Rehm, J., Crpault, J. F., Fischer, B. (2017). The devil is in the details! On regulating cannabis use in Canada based on public health criteria: comment on" legalizing and regulating marijuana in Canada: Review of potential economic, social, and health impacts".International journal of health policy and management,6(3), 173. Spithoff, S., Emerson, B., Spithoff, A. (2015). Cannabis legalization: adhering to public health best practice.Canadian Medical Association Journal,187(16), 1211-1216. Public Health Canada. (2018). National report: Apparent opioid-related deaths in Brand, E. J., Zhao, Z. (2017). Cannabis in Chinese medicine: are some traditional indications referenced in ancient literature related to cannabinoids?.Frontiers in pharmacology,8, 108. Lucas, P., Reiman, A., Earleywine, M., McGowan, S. K., Oleson, M., Coward, M. P., Thomas, B. (2013). Cannabis as a substitute for alcohol and other drugs: A dispensary-based survey of substitution effect in Canadian medical cannabis patients.Addiction Research Theory,21(5), 435-442. Fischer, B., Rehm, J., Crpault, J. F. (2016). Realistically furthering the goals of public health by cannabis legalization with strict regulation: Response to Kalant.International Journal of Drug Policy,34, 11-16. Spithoff, S., Emerson, B., Spithoff, A. (2015). Cannabis legalization: adhering to public health best practice.Canadian Medical Association Journal,187(16), 1211-1216. Spithoff, S., Emerson, B., Spithoff, A. (2015). Cannabis legalization: adhering to public health best practice.Canadian Medical Association Journal,187(16), 1211-1216. Fischer, B., Rehm, J., Crpault, J. F. (2016). Realistically furthering the goals of public health by cannabis legalization with strict regulation: Response to Kalant.International Journal of Drug Policy,34, 11-16. Fischer, B., Rehm, J., Crpault, J. F. (2016). Realistically furthering the goals of public health by cannabis legalization with strict regulation: Response to Kalant.International Journal of Drug Policy,34, 11-16. Fischer, B., Rehm, J., Crpault, J. F. (2016). Realistically furthering the goals of public health by cannabis legalization with strict regulation: Response to Kalant.International Journal of Drug Policy,34, 11-16. Crpault, J. F., Rehm, J., Fischer, B. (2015). The cannabis policy framework by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health: A proposal for a public health approach to cannabis policy in Canada.International Journal of Drug Policy,34, 1-4.under cannabis and harm Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (2014). Cannabis policy framework. Retrieved From https://www.camh.ca/en/hospital/about_camh/influencing_public_policy/ Documents/CAMHCannabisPolicyFramework.pdf Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (2014). Cannabis policy framework. Retrieved From https://www.camh.ca/en/hospital/about_camh/influencing_public_policy/ Documents/CAMHCannabisPolicyFramework.pdf Hall, W. (2015). What has research over the past two decades revealed about the adverse health effects of recreational cannabis use?.Addiction,110(1), 19-35. Hall, W. (2015). What has research over the past two decades revealed about the adverse health effects of recreational cannabis use?.Addiction,110(1), 19-35. Hall, W. (2015). What has research over the past two decades revealed about the adverse health effects of recreational cannabis use?.Addiction,110(1), 19-35. Hall, W. (2015). What has research over the past two decades revealed about the adverse health effects of recreational cannabis use?.Addiction,110(1), 19-35. Hall, W. (2015). What has research over the past two decades revealed about the adverse health effects of recreational cannabis use?.Addiction,110(1), 19-35. Hall, W. (2015). What has research over the past two decades revealed about the adverse health effects of recreational cannabis use?.Addiction,110(1), 19-35. Hall, W. (2015). What has research over the past two decades revealed about the adverse health effects of recreational cannabis use?.Addiction,110(1), 19-35. Kalant, H. (2016). A critique of cannabis legalization proposals in Canada.International Journal of Drug Policy,34, 5-10. Kalant, H. (2016). A critique of cannabis legalization proposals in Canada.International Journal of Drug Policy,34, 5-10. Page 8, Under Would legalization of cannabis, combined with regulation,significantly reduce the illicit market and its associated dangers? and page 7, Under Are adolescents and young adults especially vulnerable to the adverse effects of cannabis on health and wellbeing? Kalant, H. (2016). A critique of cannabis legalization proposals in Canada.International Journal of Drug Policy,34, 5-10. Kalant, H. (2016). A critique of cannabis legalization proposals in Canada.International Journal of Drug Policy,34, 5-10. Page 6, under Does cannabis prohibition impose serious personal harms on society that would be removed by legalization?, paragraph 3 Kalant, H. (2016). A critique of cannabis legalization proposals in Canada.International Journal of Drug Policy,34, 5-10. Page 8, under Would legalization of cannabis, combined with regulation, significantly reduce the illicit market and its associated dangers?, paragraph 3 Kalant, H.2016). A critique of cannabis legalization proposals in Canada.International Journal of Drug Policy,34, 5-10. Kalant, H. (2016). A critique of cannabis legalization proposals in Canada.International Journal of Drug Policy,34, 5-10. Kalant, H. (2016). A critique of cannabis legalization proposals in Canada.International Journal of Drug Policy,34, 5-10. Fischer, B., Rehm, J., Crpault, J. F. (2016). Realistically furthering the goals of public health by cannabis legalization with strict regulation: Response to Kalant.International Journal of Drug Policy,34, 11-16. Fischer, B., Rehm, J., Crpault, J. F. (2016). Realistically furthering the goals of public health by cannabis legalization with strict regulation: Response to Kalant.International Journal of Drug Policy,34, 11-16. Rehm, J., Crpault, J. F., Fischer, B. (2017). The devil is in the details! On regulating cannabis use in Canada based on public health criteria: comment on" legalizing and regulating marijuana in Canada: Review of potential economic, social, and health impacts".International journal of health policy and management,6(3), 173. Page 174, under Cannabis-Related Health Harms and Policy Fischer, B., Rehm, J., Crpault, J. F. (2016). Realistically furthering the goals of public health by cannabis legalization with strict regulation: Response to Kalant.International Journal of Drug Policy,34, 11-16. Fischer, B., Rehm, J., Crpault, J. F. (2016). Realistically furthering the goals of public health by cannabis legalization with strict regulation: Response to Kalant.International Journal of Drug Policy,34, 11-16.