Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Conclussion over legalisation of marijuana
Conclussion over legalisation of marijuana
Conclussion over legalisation of marijuana
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Conclussion over legalisation of marijuana
The current hot-topic debate about the legalization of marijuana for medical exposes the long lasting debate about the economic viability of prohibiting certain kind of drugs considered illicit. Many social costs to society are attributable to illicit drugs, along with tobacco, alcohol, and guns. In fact, each of these vices is allegedly responsible for $200 billion annual expenditure in social costs of the USA (Donohue, 2010). Interestingly, all these commodities mentioned above have common characteristics: a sizeable proportion of consumers responsibly use each of them hence virtually zero social externality; and a trivial subset of society individuals irresponsibly use each of these commodity to create high social externalities. The third characteristics has provoked the criminalization of drugs and consequently the perpetual and strict “war on drugs” campaigns that aim to eliminate illicit drug use, trafficking, and production. Although this campaign is laudable, the economic expenditures involved do not correlate with its negligible results. Marijuana presents a distinct perspective in the ongoing debate considering that its legalization faces resilient opposition despite empirical data and medical opinions showing it is less harmful than the federally approved and legalized drugs like alcohol and tobacco. This paper is an examination of why decriminalization and legalization of certain illicit drugs –with an emphasis on marijuana – offers better alternatives from an economic standpoint. Opponents of the legalization of marijuana and other illicit drugs validate their stand with information about the cost of illness from these drugs. The standard theory affirms their case by mandating government intervention in the drugs ... ... middle of paper ... ...c expenditure related to enforcement, rehabilitation of victims of negative externalities of drug use, and efforts at controlling and prosecuting drugs related crimes. Moreover, legalization facilitates the regulated supervision of the drug trade that is subject to tax and fines. This is a potential source of income for the state and federal authorities. References Donohue, J. J. (2010). Rethinking America's Illegal Drug Policy. New Haven: Yale Center for the Study of Globalization . Miron, J. A. (2003). A Critique of Estimates of the Economic Costs of Drug Abuse . Boston : Boston University. Tavares, A. (2012). The Impact of Drug Decriminalization in Portugal . Pedro: NOVA School of Business and Economics. Thornton, M. (2007). Legalization: Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Drug Policy? . The Independent Review, 417-433.
Legalizing the use of soft drugs would help bolster the U.S. economy, partially because the government would have the ability to tax these drugs. This includes marijuana used for medicinal purposes, which, according to a 1995 article in The Journal of the American Medical Association, can “counteract the toxicity of chemotherapy, treat migraines, minimize pain, and treat moderate wasting syndrome in AIDS patients.” The economy would also benefit from the legalization of drugs because fewer drug offenders would crowd the prisons, and the government could spend the money they saved from this reduction in prison populations on other public expenses. With drug busts running at 750,000 cases a year nationwide, (mostly for marijuana,) prisons are bulging, and those imprisoned for drug-related crime account for only a fraction of America’s drug users. In Elliot Currie’s essay, “Toward a Policy on Drugs,”...
During the duration of this paper, I will discuss an issue that has been controversial for over a century; prohibition and how it has effected, currently effects, and will, most likey, continue to effect American society. The aspects that I choose to address from this issue are political, historical, they make you wonder, and they should effect anyone who reads this paper. For decades, the American government has had a restriction or ban on drugs and alcohol. Also for decades, these restrictions have been met with resistance from our society. In the early twentieth century, from 1920 through 1933, it was the prohibition of alcohol. A corrupt time, in which, so called, "criminals" and law makers both manufactured and sold bootlegged alcohol. There was high demand then and everyone was in it for the money, everyone. A time which proved to be a failed attempt by the government to take away what is now one of the United States' top commodities. During the 1970's President Richard Nixon started an ongoing "war on drugs" and every president since Nixon has continued this fight to, somehow, rid the entire country of illicit drugs. Today, a few states have taken a new approach to one of these drugs and eyebrows are being raised to the war on drugs all together. States, such as, California, Washington, and Calorado have loosened their tight grip on prohibiting marijuana and even have medical marijuana dispenseries. This idea has been proven to have boosted those economies, and it has allowed people with cancer to use a medication that actually gives them comfort. However, marijuana is still illegal. Why would we restrict the nation from something that beneficial...
America's War on Drugs: Policy and Problems. In this paper I will evaluate America's War on Drugs. More specifically, I will outline our nation's general drug history and look critically at how Congress has influenced our current ineffective drug policy. Through this analysis, I hope to show that drug prohibition policies in the United States, for the most part, have failed.
Today’s economy is struggling and it is in dire need of relief. As of 2013, the United State’s debt was $17 trillion, and if marijuana were to be legalized than it would help raise more money. It could be taxed and distributed for consumption sold like alcohol and tobacco. Taxes on cigarettes amounted to more than $43.3 Billion in 2012 (RJReynolds). The legalization of marijuana could possibly one day make that money helping to reduce this nation's debt. But, as the United States continues to prohibit the use of marijuana, it will make the taxpayers pay more money each year on the illegal usage of the drug. The marijuana prohibition costs both state and federal governments more than $20 billion a year (CATO Institute). One drug policy could change how much it wastes on the prohibition but the government has done so. A study by the CATO institute showed that...
Some of the most prominent economists already involved in the issue are Jeffrey Miron and Mark Thornton. One strand of the discussion comes from Jeffrey Miron 2004. He discusses the current battle with the regulation and legalization of drugs in the United States and provides an analysis of the problems associated with prohibition. Miron offers a balanced, sophisticated and in-depth analysis of the true costs, benefits, and consequences of strictly enforcing drug prohibition. He argues that the effects of prohibition on drug use have been modest at best and have numerous highly unfavorable detrimental side effects. Specifically, prohibition is shown to directly increase violence, even when it deters drug use. Miron's analysis leads to the alarming discovery that the more resources given to the war on drugs, the higher the homicide rate. He provides a cost-benefit analysis on several alternatives to the war on drugs. His conclusion is indisputable. He proclaims that any of the numerous and widely discussed alternatives are likely to be a substantial improvement over the current policy of total
the only way to make money. Minimum wage salaries can not compare to the huge
Lately it seems that drug policy and the war on drugs has been in the headlines quite a lot. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the policies that the United States government takes against illegal drugs are coming into question. The mainstream media is catching on to the message of organizations and individuals who have long been considered liberal "Counter Culture" supporters. The marijuana question seems to be the most prevalent and pressed of the drugs and issues that are currently being addressed. The messages of these organizations and individuals include everything from legalization of marijuana for medical purposes, to full-unrestricted legalization of the drug. Of course, the status quo of vote seeking politicians and conservative policy makers has put up a strong resistance to this "new" reform lobby. The reasons for the resistance to the changes in drug policies are multiple and complex. The issues of marijuana’s possible negative effects, its use as a medical remedy, the criminality of distribution and usage, and the disparity in the enforcement of current drug laws have all been brought to a head and must be addressed in the near future. It is apparent that it would be irresponsible and wrong for the government to not evaluate it’s current general drug policies and perhaps most important, their marijuana policy. With the facts of racial disparity in punishment, detrimental effects, fiscal strain and most importantly, the history of the drug, the government most certainly must come to the conclusion that they must, at the very least, decriminalize marijuana use and quite probably fully legalize it.
for drugs that helps lead to problems with prostitution, gambling, and even human organs. Society is suffering from the unsuccessful and costly results of prohibition. Although drug regulation has steadily been increasing, drug use and drug related deaths have increased steadily. Even though spending to combat the...
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.
Concerned authorities have focused essentially on criminalization and punishment, to find remedies to the ever-increasing prevalent drug problem. In the name of drug reducing policies, authorities endorse more corrective and expensive drug control methods and officials approve stricter new drug war policies, violating numerous human rights. Regardless of or perhaps because of these efforts, UN agencies estimate the annual revenue generated by the illegal drug industry at $US400 billion, or the equivalent of roughly eight per cent of total international trade (Riley 1998). This trade has increased organized/unorganized crime, corrupted authorities and police officials, raised violence, disrupted economic markets, increased risk of diseases an...
For many years, a real push has been looming on the idea of legalizing now illegal drugs. This has become a hot debate throughout nations all over the world, from all walks of life. The dispute over the idea of decriminalizing illegal drugs is and will continue on as an ongoing conflict. In 2001, Drug decriminalization in all drugs, including cocaine and heroin, became a nationwide law in Portugal (Greenwald). Ethan Nadelman, essayist of “Think again: Drugs,” states his side of the story on the continuing criminalization of hard drugs, in which he stand to oppose. Whether it is for the good of human rights or not, decriminalizing drugs may be a good head start for a new beginning.
The legalization of marijuana has been a highly debated topic for many of years. Since the first president to the most recent, our nation’s leaders have consumed the plant known as weed. With such influential figures openly using this drug why is it so frowned upon? Marijuana is considered a gateway drug, a menace to society, and mentally harmful to its consumers. For some people weed brings a sense of anxiety, dizziness, or unsettling feeling. Like alcohol, tobacco or any other drug, those chemicals may not respond well with their body. For other people marijuana brings joy, a sense of relief, and takes the edge off of every day stress. For those who are associated with cannabis, purposes usually range from a relaxant, or cash crop, to more permissible uses such as medicine, and ingredient to make so many other materials. We now need to look at what would change if marijuana were legal. Benefits to the economy and agriculture, health issues, and crime rates are three areas worth looking at. Deliberating on the pros and cons of this plant we can get a better understanding for marijuana. From there it will be easier to make a clear consensus on what is best for the nation.
The arguments that I have just laid out are not perfect and they have some apparent flaws that some philosophers would strongly disagree with, while there are other arguments that some of the great philosophers would agree with. I will critique the arguments that I have just laid out using the perspective of three different philosophers who all have their own ideas of how the state should function and the role of the citizen. The three philosophers that I will use in this critique will be Karl Marx, John Stewart Mill, and John Locke. The reason why I picked these three philosophers is because they all agree with some aspects of my writing, while disagreeing with others. One will disagree with the role of the state and the citizens, but agree with legalizing recreational drug use, while the other two will agree with the role of the state and citizens, but disagree with legalizing drug use.
Legalization of marijuana has become an increasingly popular topic for debate in society, with “sentiment in favor of legalization [increasing] by 20 [percentage] points in just over a decade,” bringing support for legalization to 52% (Dionne and Galston). The most common arguments for reforming current legislation are the following: enforcement wastes public resources, taxation can provide a new source of revenue, and enforcement of current laws is discriminatory (Dionne and Galston). It is necessary to look at the impact on the primary stakeholders by analyzing the various harms and benefits through application of the ethical theories of utilitarianism and deontology, in order to determine the solution that will result in the best possible outcome. In determining the ethicality of legalizing marijuana, it is necessary to understand the background of the issue, and to identify the most important stakeholders. In the 1930s, many states began outlawing the substance; ironically California was the first of these states (Rendon).
Recreational drug use has been controversial for years. Government has deemed the use of certain drugs to be dangerous, addictive, costly, and fatal. Governmental agencies have passed laws to make drugs illegal and then have focused a great deal of attention and money trying to prohibit the use of these drugs, and many people support these sanctions because they view the illegality of drugs to be the main protection against the destruction of our society (Trebach, n.d.). Restricting behavior doesn’t generally stop people from engaging in that behavior; prohibition tends to result in people finding more creative ways to obtain and use drugs. However, just knowing that trying to control people’s behavior by criminalizing drug use does not work still leaves us looking for a solution, so what other options exist? This paper will discuss the pros and cons about one option: decriminalizing drugs.