Introduction
Illicit drug usage has been a subject of varied legal, medical and ethical considerations in the United States (US). Many understand illicit drugs as harmful substances that face strict legal regulations, with links to deviant behavior harmful to the welfare of society. Yet, challenges to that contention have emerged resulting of emerging research on particular benefits and alternative remedies. Among those illicit drugs in question is marijuana – one that possesses medical qualities alongside its reputed usage as an addictive drug.
This study poises to tackle arguments on legalizing marijuana usage in the US. The subject matter has become a subject of multiple studies, hence accounting for its rich literature base. Legal arguments would provide a significant bulk of the study, although perspectives from the medical field prove just as important. Implications on marijuana legalization come primarily from medical experts, as legal ground has centered primarily on the medicinal properties of the drug. A synthesis of the findings aims to validate the premise concerning the feasibility to legalize marijuana usage in the US.
Legal Implications of Marijuana Legalization
Legal Background- Focus on Medical Applications
Marijuana, being a drug with alleged medicinal benefits, has become the centerpiece of illicit drug law controversies in the US. Arguments favoring the usage of marijuana as medicine have met offsetting counterarguments on its detrimental effects. Nevertheless, marijuana legalization has concentrated primarily on its impact as a medicinal substance, with opposition coming from circles asserting the harmful effects it harbors as an addictive substance.
The trend of state-level laws in the US shows partial support for marijuana usage. Out of 50 states, 35 have laws related to the medicinal use of marijuana, despite federal law restrictions on possession and usage. Scientific research has provided for the bulk of reasoning states have issued in allowing marijuana usage, with 12 states categorized in that manner. Yet, there is an understanding that the federal-level Uniformed Controlled Substances Act (USCA) of 1994 has provided constraints to that matter. Another 10 of those 32 states have recognized the potential medical benefits – untapped and tapped, of marijuana, although that argument does not justify immunity under laws should illicit usage emerge. Eight states permit the use of marijuana in medical treatment for patients, despite the constraining effects of the UCSA.
The USCA itself has categorized marijuana under Schedule 1. That means the federal-level law does not recognize marijuana as a drug that has medical usage. While that did not affect the degree of state-level legislation, the jurisprudential precedent set by the case of Conant vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative have emphasized on the power of the federal government to go after clubs organized for the sale of cannabis. Furthermore, state-level provisions appear weak in terms of specifying the ideal amount of marijuana allowed per person, as many states have yet to enact provisions relevant legal provisions within their jurisdiction.
Marijuana, in fact, has found support from patient circles whose sicknesses require the use of the drug for better treatment. The controlled use of marijuana, in this case, bears a strong relevance, provided physicians and patients alike satisfy the interest of society concerning the regulation of the abusive effects of the drug. Denying medical marijuana usage due to a strict observation of the law could constitute an effective denial of patients of hope for treatment, especially in cases where the drug would prove highly effective. Furthermore, physicians should isolate their personal views on marijuana usage from the effective practice of their profession. As there is an understanding that marijuana has a controversial image in society, physicians should become highly objective in prudently deciding on using the drug. In that way, patients would not suffer under the hands of physicians whose beliefs hinder them to render the best possible solution for their sickness, which may come in the form of marijuana usage.
Potential Effects of Legalization – An Australian Perspective
The foregoing has effectively established federal laws being constraints on state-level permissibility of marijuana usage, the latter due to medicinal reasons. Such is characteristic of the way regulation of marijuana has ensued in the US, although perspectives from another nation provide other suggestive implications useful for consideration.
Australia is a nation that has marijuana regulation laws in place at both federal and state levels. Such nation provides for a case where minor usage of marijuana could lead to prosecution. The indiscriminate punishment given to those who committed major and minor violations related to marijuana has profound negative effects towards the legitimacy of regulatory laws in place. Many have viewed those laws as oppressive, as those have failed to distinguish punishments for minor and major offenders. At the same time, those laws have not posted significant effects on lowering marijuana-related cases, as it has led to degrading effects on the morale of those convicted of minor offenses. Fears that decriminalizing marijuana could lead to more serious cases have come under strong dispute, as the trend of decriminalization as compared to prohibitionist states in the nation has not triggered violation cases to rise. Thus, there is a strong suggestion that marijuana regulation in the nation should distinguish between the major and minor offenses in order to remove the stigma attached to minor offenders as they receive similar punishments imposed unto major offenders. In effect, the need to draft alternatives to the status quo has emerged. For the US, such a case is profoundly applicable, as it is possible that decriminalizing marijuana usage will not lead to the feared effect of rising abuse cases. Yet, that is a consideration in need of further research. Results divergent to the Australian case may emanate due to the different sociopolitical and economic factors the US possesses.
African-American Reactions
Race has become a demographic consideration in assessing the level of support towards illicit drug-related laws in US, which cover marijuana. Findings have shown that African-Americans have the greater tendency to favor a loosening of those laws. In 1987, a consensus among all Americans has found favor for stricter sanctions to drug usage, with many opposed to marijuana legalization that time. Yet, African-Americans are not as staunch compared to other Americans in declaring their support for stricter drug laws, setting the implication that they may have the greater tendency to support laws upholding the usage of marijuana. Being a population that has become the source of much trouble involving drug-related crimes usually run by criminal gangs, African-Americans may need to hold dialogues with policymakers concerning their milieu. Policymakers should keep in mind the problems causing drug abuse among African-Americans in order to identify their uneasiness towards strict drug laws. Simply put, policymakers should avoid excessive priority on prosecution, as they should focus their sights on restorative measures instead. Understanding the root of drug-related problems in affected communities provide for a viable measure instead of arresting criminals all the time, as such could halt the spread of cases while maintaining the legitimacy of the laws. Ergo, a guided, interactive and cooperative approach to solving drug-related problems could strengthen the legitimacy of regulatory legislation of illicit drugs.
Emerging Alternatives
The growing reception of Americans to revisions in the current prohibitionist state of laws related to marijuana state that there is now a stronger support base for possible alternatives. Taking into perusal the consequences of full prohibition, which includes the decline of legitimacy of laws prohibiting marijuana usage, there is sufficient ground to allege that alternatives may need to take place. Decriminalization of marijuana, as explained in the previous case may not entirely result to a rise in abuse cases. Nevertheless, there is an acknowledgement for further research to provide verifications. Toleration towards independent sale and regulations is another emerging alternative to prohibitionist measures, for such activities could gain greater scope under drug regulation laws without any possibility of hostile reactions, which could further undermine the legitimacy of those laws. Overall, while those suggested reforms might provide an optimistic outlook for the general scale of marijuana legalization, it is nevertheless proper to allege that it is still impossible at this point to supply projections for the future trends of marijuana legalization in the full market picture. It remains possible for decriminalization to cause more harmful effects to society due to abuse, although such remains as speculation.
Effect on Adolescents
Much speculation on decriminalization of marijuana has revolved around the possibility of increasing sales among young people. In other words, there is a speculation that more young people would buy marijuana if such drug is decriminalized. However, such appears as a product of inadequate projection, as it stands up to this point that no other nation has fully imposed a law legalizing marijuana usage. Yet, as suggested by findings, it remains possible for marijuana to become much more harmful to adolescents if put into the market under legal terms. Adolescents would have the tendency to view marijuana as a drug less risky than their initial impression, leading them to view it just like alcohol and tobacco – two addictive products directly advertised to them. Medical consequences of marijuana has proved pivotal for movements to legalize the drug, although such should not focus on the smoked type of the drug as it constitutes its addictive usage – one in which adolescents would tend to abuse.
Reactions of Physicians
Legalizing marijuana has become primarily a debate on its medicinal advantage, and such has caused divergent reactions within the medical community as well. Physicians have expressed concerns over the abusive tendencies marijuana could trigger, which led them to go against the idea of possessing it, in defiance of the law. Substance abuse has primarily characterized antagonism towards marijuana, and has thus caused skepticism over the objective matter of using the drug as medication. Yet, there are physicians whose views on marijuana possession and usage derive influences from liberal ideas. Legalizing marijuana is an idea most physicians that are younger and more oriented on liberal thoughts and less religious influence. Moreover, physicians who have used marijuana and other illicit drugs are those who stand the greater possibility of agreeing to a decriminalized setting for the drug. Thus, it is credible to assert that physicians have various opinions on matters pertaining to marijuana usage, which in turn could influence potential patients.
Recognizing International Programs
Marijuana usage is an issue that extends beyond the confines of US borders. International bodies have regarded marijuana usage as one that could incur negative results to all people across the globe. While illicit drugs, in general, are highly antagonized in many respects, the emergence of possible benefits of marijuana – considered an illicit drug, has entailed advocates of legalization to gain more incentives to strengthen their campaign. Thus, international bodies are more careful with regard to formulating considerations for marijuana, for the fact that it possesses benefits makes it difficult for them to deem it harmful without recognizing its health benefits.
The growth of the illicit drug trade in many parts of the world has become a major cause of concern of the international community. The fact that it has spread to developing nations have made the concern all the more daunting, given the poor sociopolitical and economic factors of those nations which could lead to greater strength of law-defying drug distributors who could gain prominence through serving a wide range of clients worldwide. The ensuing crime and poverty in developing nations make them a suitable hotbed for drug distribution operations, with many of the products therein ultimately ending up on underground markets in the US.
The United Nations (UN) has a support body for that cause in the form of the UN Drug Control Programme (UNDCP). It is the organization regulating the international distribution of illicit drugs, and as such has provided for several findings of that concern. Among the most daunting discoveries includes the immense growth of profits of drug distributors. Income generation of Latin American nations involved in the drug trade, for instance, has produced £500,000 yearly, with profits extending towards funding for further criminal activities related to drugs. Domestic sanctions within those nations proved inadequate due to weak governance and corruption, thus necessitating the use of internationally enforced sanctions coming from the UNDCP.
Supply reduction of drugs has become one of the priorities of the UNDCP. The organization has since stepped up to solve the problem through its roots in order to remove the stimulants of the international drug market - the elimination of crops used for drugs, including marijuana. Yet, such move is not without compromise, as it is extremely difficult to target specifically the crops for elimination given the technology present at this point. The use of herbicides – frequently used for crop elimination, has become highly effective in killing drug crops, although it has caused collateral damage to other crops that are not harmful. In short, it has affected markets for other crops, causing those to become weaker despite the elimination of harmful drug crops.
Considering international movements to eliminate drugs for the US case could provide vital results. If the US were to legalize consumption of marijuana for any purposes, policymakers have to consider vital international effects. If, for instance, decriminalization has led consumers to hike the figures of marijuana demand, suppliers would definitely gain motivation to fulfill such demand. Those coming from other nations, particularly developing ones, would gain incentives to supply such a lucrative market that may emerge in the US. In that case, the costs of marijuana abuse could possibly arise, albeit lack of credible projection on the matter at this point. It remains possible that decriminalization would not actually enable a demand increase in the US market, but the effects on international markets prove daunting enough for experts not to ignore possible negative consequences. In that case, the US government should work with the international community in assessing the possible feasibility of legalizing marijuana. Holding talks on the matter would not just address the national cause of the US, but also that of other nations as well. Such talks, if the US has the ultimate interest of legalizing marijuana domestically, could transpire better market cooperation in that states involved in the drug distribution process (including those from Latin America) could gain ideas that would eventually inspire them to regulate the drug supply trade within their area. Addressing transnational problems such as the immense growth of violent cartels is another crucial component that must exist within such talks. It is undeniable that drug cartels have built private armies in exchange of their lucrative trade, and that those armies may harbor anti-government sentiments, particularly in matters pertaining to taxation. An international dialogue participated in by the US could duly solve the dynamic and international picture of legalizing marijuana domestically, although it remains speculative as to what extent those talks to reach or produce.
Conclusion
Legalizing marijuana provides for a highly complex and dynamic system of problems pertaining to domestic and international factors. Domestic contentions usually circle on the premise of the harmfulness of the drug on the overall well-being of people and society, as a whole. The international setting, on the other hand, has placed the issue of marijuana legalization on the macro level due to its possible effects on cultivating illegal supply markets in nations with weak sociopolitical and economic infrastructures. Thus, it is not wrong to declare that legalizing marijuana usage is a highly contentious matter that requires an utmost consideration of all factors affecting it. Absent such consideration, negative effects would cause the breakdown of the whole set of reasons advocating for marijuana legalization. In short, it is important for policymakers to engage in more research efforts tackling domestic and international factors to create viable policies favoring the use and distribution of marijuana, so that none of the factors involved would collapse due to perilous compromises. For now, the justification of marijuana legislation is a large gap in the literature of the issue at hand, given the stream of inadequate projections and lack of findings. This study encourages those involved – policymakers, nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and other bodies to increase their efforts at coming up with a firm resolution of the issue which, as of now, may not be favorable due to the burden of harm associated with marijuana.
Works Cited
Boister, Neil. “The Suppression of Illicit Drugs through International Law.” Thesis. University of Nottingham, 1998. Print.
Grey, Matthew. "Medical Use of Marijuana: Legal and Ethical Considerations in the Patient/Physician Relationship." University of Richmond Law Review 30 (1996). Web.
Joffe, Alain, and Yancy, W. Samuel. "Medical Use of Marijuana: Legal and Ethical Considerations in the Patient/Physician Relationship." Pediatrics 113.6 (2004): e632-e638. Web.
Lenton, Simon. "Cannabis Protection and the Burden of Proof: Is It Now Beyond Reasonable Doubt That Cannabis Prohibition Is Not Working?" Drug and Alcohol Review 19 (2000): 95-100. Print.
Linn, Lawrence, Yager, Joel, and Barbara Leake. "Physicians’ Attitude toward the Legalization of Marijuana Usage" The Western Journal of Medicine 150.6 (1989): 714-717. Print.
MacCoun, Robert, and Peter Reuter. "Assessing Drug Prohibition and Its Alternatives: A Guide for Agnostics." Annual Review of Law and Social Science 7 (2011): 61-78. Print.
Meares, Tracey. "Charting Race and Class Differences in Attitudes toward Drug Legalization and Law Enforcement: Lessons for Federal Criminal Law?" Buffalo Criminal Law Review 137 (1997): 137-174. Print.
"National Drug Policy: United States of America." Parliament of Canada. 24 July 2010. Web. 22 Jan. 2013.
