Legalization of Medical Cannabis

Legalization of cannabis
Name:
Course:
Professor Name:
(December, 2012)
.

Table of contents
 TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc343185895"
Introduction  PAGEREF _Toc343185895 \h
2
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc343185896"
History of the topic  PAGEREF _Toc343185896 \h
2
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc343185897"
Problems rising within the topic  PAGEREF _Toc343185897 \h
4
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc343185898"
Arguments pro and con on legalization  PAGEREF _Toc343185898 \h
6
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc343185899"
The current state of debate  PAGEREF _Toc343185899 \h
9
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc343185900"
Conclusion  PAGEREF _Toc343185900 \h
10
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc343185901"
References  PAGEREF _Toc343185901 \h
11

Introduction
The issue of legalization of cannabis has been a great issue to the Americans and has featured in the media greatly. The impact of marijuana has remained a serious topic on the media too. The recent trend of the American states proposals that focus on the changing the law that governs the use of marijuana is alarming. First targets were to legalize its use on medical grounds but now some are thinking of legalizing its use for the adults. The public perception on its use has changed dramatically as many Americans now support legalization.
This paper aims at addressing the ethics of the legalization of cannabis; touching on its history, the problems arising on the topic, the arguments for and against, the current state of events and finally providing a personal view of the debate.
History of the topic
The issue of marijuana started long time ago in America’s history. In 1914 the drug use was defined as a crime under the Harrison law says Inciardi. To get around states' rights issues, the act used a tax to regulate opium- and coca-derived drugs: it levied a tax on nonmedical uses of the drugs that was much higher than the cost of the drugs themselves, and punished anyone using the drugs without paying the tax. In 1937 more than 20 states had prohibited its use and on same year the federal government passed the marihuana Tax act. This act prohibited the use of marijuana other than on medical terms only. Only the birdseed industry was exempted on grounds that they use it for the bird’s feathers beauty. Another exception was in Second World War when the government planted huge hectares of the plant to sustain the demand for naval rope needs (Inciardi, 1999).
Inciardi continues to say, in 1950 the congress passed the Boggs Act and the Narcotics control Act. This Acts specified the punishment for the drug offenders which included marijuana possessors and distributors. Reagan administration come and strengthened its laws. Since then, there has been a trend of relaxation on the drug use. Several states have been following the California’s trend of legalizing marijuana on medical grounds in 1996. However, some people are to the view that its legalization on medical grounds has sparked the country culture on its use other than medical requirement (Inciardi, 1999). For instance, in Los Angeles there are more than one thousand illegal marijuana dealers in the city only, says the county district attorney.
Its medical use has been a thorny issue ever since California legalized in 1996. It represents a violation of the Controlled Substances Act, which classifies it as Schedule 1 substance Inciardi notes (that is, having high potential for dependence with no "accepted" medical use). This year Colorado and Washington voted in favor of having the drug legalized for non medical purposes. Many questions has started coming on board on how the federal government should respond to the passage of these referenda. The US department of Justice has stood its ground that the laws on substance abuse will remain unchanged. However, the Obama administration kept quiet on this controversy (Inciardi, 1999).
Inciardi notes in reference to medical ethics code of the American medical association, "In general, when physicians believe a law is unjust, they should work to change the law. In exceptional circumstances of unjust laws, ethical responsibilities should surpass legal obligations" (Inciardi, 1999). According to this ethics, it is obvious the medical practitioners should join in the fight of ensuring the legalization of cannabis on medical grounds. However, there is a dilemma; the legalization of the substance poses a threat to increase the number of Americans suffering as a result of its use. This question is should they choose to enforce the government to stand firm in changing the law. The Obama administration has adopted the policy of “do not ask, do not tell” regarding the rising individual states legalization of the substance.
Problems rising within the topic
Many Americans are wondering which side to support. Science has fully confirmed that the use of cannabis is addictive and its continued use harms the body and the mental functions. It has been associated with many ailments in human including, memory loss, cancer, immune system deficiencies, heart disease, and birth defects, among other conditions. More to note it is a source of crime, violence, and social disintegration even in areas where it is legalized (Benson, Joy, & Watson, 1999).
The Californian vote on the use of marijuana by the adults is against the federal government law on substance use. The department of justice has firmly said in writing that the federal laws remain unchanged. Now one wonders, what happens on these contractions; yes, the federal laws surpasses the state’s laws but what is the way forward (Benson, Joy, & Watson, 1999)!
The current campaigns that have been going on recognizes the harm associated with marijuana trafficking and its use but on the other hand they have been promising the American citizens many benefits that will accompany its legalization. They range from crime reduction to more tax to the government. These arguments have been on five basic claims: its use is not harmful and no additive as the scientists have been claiming, marijuana prohibition just like the alcohol prohibit of the early 1900 will not work, the government fight on its use have failed evidently, money used by the government on its prevention is quite more than what it can spend on substance abuse and treatment for the allegedly few marijuana users who abuse the drug, and finally, the amount of money the government will gain as tax in the sale of marijuana will over weigh the benefits the society gains from its criminalization (Benson, Joy, & Watson, 1999).
According to MacCoun and Reuter these purported claims by these campaigners are not true since they ignore crime, and communities. They have not reasoned rationally on the following grounds of concern the mechanics of decriminalization; that is, how it would directly affect law enforcement,: how will the individual states law of legalizing the substance fit in the federal law, the high probability of expanding market opportunities of the existing gangs and drug cartels who dominate the distribution of the illegal drugs, the measures to ensure the children (innocent) are not protected and finally, the future of American transportation system; the impact of having drivers who are high and drunk on the roads (MacCoun & Reuter, 2001)!
The federal government shares these concerns. MacCoun and Reuter notes the Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), concerns, “Marijuana legalization, for any purpose, is a...