Legalization of Marijuana Essay for school.

[NICKOTINE]

Alright so I am writing a 7-10 page essay on the legalization of marijuana for school. So basically I need a ton of good examples to why it would be a good idea to legalize marijuana. Don't worry, I won't quote you in my paper... But thanks to everyone who helps out.

[amsterdamage]

There are several arguments you could focus on, from the relative safety of marijuana to the effect the prohibition has on society. But the most compelling arguments will always be those that directly address the reasons our legislators give for voting to continue the prohibition.

The first thing you should do is clearly define what you mean by "the legalization of marijuana". Do you mean everything that's currently illegal concerning marijuana will simply be reclassified as "legal"? ..that's the definition our legislators like to imply when they say legalization will increase the accessibility of marijuana to minors.

So clearly state what you mean by "legalization", then put forth the benefits it'll give. Also you have to concentrate on the benefits non-smokers will gain from legalization. Saying something like "legalization will be good coz it'll be easier to buy weed" will not help your position one bit.


If it's any help, this is how I define "legalization". Legalizing marijuana means to impose upon marijuana the same laws and controls that are currently enforced on alcohol. In brief, these are: The personal consumption of marijuana by adults in the privacy of their own home and in licensed establishments ("coffeeshops") will be legal.
The production and sale of marijuana by licensed businesses in accordance with all relevant regulations will be legal and taxed.
The personal production of marijuana for personal consumption will be legal and untaxed.
Additionally, the unlicensed production and sale of marijuana, and its consumption by minors, will remain illegal and continue to be subject to enforcement by the DEA and local police.


In regard to the benefits non-smokers will gain through legalization, the most important is that it'll reduce the dangers facing their children. The major flaw in prohibition is that it fails to address the unrelenting demand for marijuana. An environment of unrelenting demand and zero legal supply creates the perfect conditions for criminal elements to enter the market seeking to make quick, and extensive, profits. The prohibition therefore draws into our communities the very drug dealers that its implementation sought to eliminate!

Remember that the prohibition policy has been well tested. This is not a new policy that just needs "a little more time" before it'll yield results. It was enforced on alcohol for thirteen years (1920 - 1933), and has been implemented on marijuana for seventy-one years (1937 - today). If prohibition could eliminate marijuana and the drug dealers that sell it then it would've done it by now.

While you're talking about the benefits to non-smoking parents you could mention that while they fear the influence drug dealers have on their children, not one of them worries about bootleggers. This is because the legalization of alcohol drove bootleggers out of society. And legalization of marijuana will do exactly the same thing to drug dealers.


You could also mention that the prohibition costs taxpayers $40 billion a year ($10 billion enforcement costs and $30 billion in lost taxes) so taxpayers will benefit financially from the end of the prohibition. But this argument isn't as compelling as being able to remove drug dealers from our streets. There is NOTHING prohibitionists can say to counter that. They can't arrest them out of existence because everytime they remove one batch a new one takes their place. Clamping down on suppliers does nothing to reduce demand because removing suppliers simply drives up prices which draws even worse criminal elements into our communities. The end result is our communities are less safe than they were before.


The main argument legislators give for voting to continue the prohibition is "legalization will send the wrong message (to kids)". But since the prohibition puts kids in danger from drug dealers it is unconscionable for our legislators to put kids at risk just to send them the "right message". This argument is without merit anyway because it is nothing more than a concern about what might happen, while the 2,000 marijuana arrests that occur every day and the human suffering that this causes are very very real.


One good thing to do is to quote government sources supporting legalization. That shows that even the government as a whole doesn't support prohibition. A nice quote is by Abraham Lincoln:

"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes."

Then there are the findings of the 1972 National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse ("The Shafer Commission"). This was the commission that was supposed to determine how marijuana would be classified in the new Controlled Substances Act. Until the commission made its ruling marijuana had been temporarily placed into Schedule I by Assistant Secretary of Health, Roger O. Egeberg as a prudent measure pending the Commission's report.

The Commission's recommendations were unexpected. Named after its chairman, Raymond P. Shafer, the Commission recommended decriminalization of marijuana and said, "[T]he criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only 'with the greatest reluctance."

Another notable quote is from 1986 when DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge, Francis L. Young ruled that "marijuana did not meet the legal criteria of a Schedule I prohibited drug and should be reclassified". He described marijuana as "..one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."

Also, just by looking at the difference in death rates between the different recreational drugs shows that marijuana is by far the safest. Tobacco kills 400,000 people in this country every year, alcohol kills 100,000 every year, while there has never been a single verifiable death by marijuana in the history of man. And if you consider its addictive properties, it is somewhat less addictive than caffeine.


But as I say, it's best to focus on the benefits of legalization as opposed to the safety of marijuana itself.

One last thing. You may wonder why the ONDCP is so dogged in its opposition to legalization. Maybe you're thinking that they're of the belief that marijuana is so dangerous that they must oppose legalization out of their sheer compassion for society. Well this isn't actually what motivates them. The ONDCP opposes legalization because they are legally mandated to do so. It's written into the legislation governing the ONDCP that they must "..take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize" marijuana".
[s. 704(b)(12) Reauthorization Act of 1998]

That is why they make those freakin' awful anti-marijuana ads and why they oppose anything that might possibly lead to legalization.


GL man! ..hope you do well!!

[NICKOTINE]

Originally Posted by amsterdamage

There are several arguments you could focus on, from the relative safety of marijuana to the effect the prohibition has on society. But the most compelling arguments will always be those that directly address the reasons our legislators give for voting to continue the prohibition.

The first thing you should do is clearly define what you mean by "the legalization of marijuana". Do you mean everything that's currently illegal concerning marijuana will simply be reclassified as "legal"? ..that's the definition our legislators like to imply when they say legalization will increase the accessibility of marijuana to minors.

So clearly state what you mean by "legalization", then put forth the benefits it'll give. Also you have to concentrate on the benefits non-smokers will gain from legalization. Saying something like "legalization will be good coz it'll be easier to buy weed" will not help your position one bit.


If it's any help, this is how I define "legalization". Legalizing marijuana means to impose upon marijuana the same laws and controls that are currently enforced on alcohol. In brief, these are: The personal consumption of marijuana by adults in the privacy of their own home and in licensed establishments ("coffeeshops") will be legal.
The production and sale of marijuana by licensed businesses in accordance with all relevant regulations will be legal and taxed.
The personal production of marijuana for personal consumption will be legal and untaxed.
Additionally, the unlicensed production and sale of marijuana, and its consumption by minors, will remain illegal and continue to be subject to enforcement by the DEA and local police.


In regard to the benefits non-smokers will gain through legalization, the most important is that it'll reduce the dangers facing their children. The major flaw in prohibition is that it fails to address the unrelenting demand for marijuana. An environment of unrelenting demand and zero legal supply creates the perfect conditions for criminal elements to enter the market seeking to make quick, and extensive, profits. The prohibition therefore draws into our communities the very drug dealers that its implementation sought to eliminate!

Remember that the prohibition policy has been well tested. This is not a new policy that just needs "a little more time" before it'll yield results. It was enforced on alcohol for thirteen years (1920 - 1933), and has been implemented on marijuana for seventy-one years (1937 - today). If prohibition could eliminate marijuana and the drug dealers that sell it then it would've done it by now.

While you're talking about the benefits to non-smoking parents you could mention that while they fear the influence drug dealers have on their children, not one of them worries about bootleggers. This is because the legalization of alcohol drove bootleggers out of society. And legalization of marijuana will do exactly the same thing to drug dealers.


You could also mention that the prohibition costs taxpayers $40 billion a year ($10 billion enforcement costs and $30 billion in lost taxes) so taxpayers will benefit financially from the end of the prohibition. But this argument isn't as compelling as being able to remove drug dealers from our streets. There is NOTHING prohibitionists can say to counter that. They can't arrest them out of existence because everytime they remove one batch a new one takes their place. Clamping down on suppliers does nothing to reduce demand because removing suppliers simply drives up prices which draws even worse criminal elements into our communities. The end result is our communities are less safe than they were before.


The main argument legislators give for voting to continue the prohibition is "legalization will send the wrong message (to kids)". But since the prohibition puts kids in danger from drug dealers it is unconscionable for our legislators to put kids at risk just to send them the "right message". This argument is without merit anyway because it is nothing more than a concern about what might happen, while the 2,000 marijuana arrests that occur every day and the human suffering that this causes are very very real.


One good thing to do is to quote government sources supporting legalization. That shows that even the government as a whole doesn't support prohibition. A nice quote is by Abraham Lincoln:

"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes."

Then there are the findings of the 1972 National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse ("The Shafer Commission"). This was the commission that was supposed to determine how marijuana would be classified in the new Controlled Substances Act. Until the commission made its ruling marijuana had been temporarily placed into Schedule I by Assistant Secretary of Health, Roger O. Egeberg as a prudent measure pending the Commission's report.

The Commission's recommendations were unexpected. Named after its chairman, Raymond P. Shafer, the Commission recommended decriminalization of marijuana and said, "[T]he criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only 'with the greatest reluctance."

Another notable quote is from 1986 when DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge, Francis L. Young ruled that "marijuana did not meet the legal criteria of a Schedule I prohibited drug and should be reclassified". He described marijuana as "..one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."

Also, just by looking at the difference in death rates between the different recreational drugs shows that marijuana is by far the safest. Tobacco kills 400,000 people in this country every year, alcohol kills 100,000 every year, while there has never been a single verifiable death by marijuana in the history of man. And if you consider its addictive properties, it is somewhat less addictive than caffeine.


But as I say, it's best to focus on the benefits of legalization as opposed to the safety of marijuana itself.

One last thing. You may wonder why the ONDCP is so dogged in its opposition to legalization. Maybe you're thinking that they're of the belief that marijuana is so dangerous that they must oppose legalization out of their sheer compassion for society. Well this isn't actually what motivates them. The ONDCP opposes legalization because they are legally mandated to do so. It's written into the legislation governing the ONDCP that they must "..take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize" marijuana".
[s. 704(b)(12) Reauthorization Act of 1998]

That is why they make those freakin' awful anti-marijuana ads and why they oppose anything that might possibly lead to legalization.


GL man! ..hope you do well!!

You have absolutely no idea how much of this information I am actually going to use in my paper. Thanks a ton. Yeah I wouldn't ever say it would be good because it would be easiar to get weed... lol. Really before reading what you have said, I was going to talk about how it would make marijuana safer because if all weed would run through the government or like the FDA of some sort and that would make marijuana safer because today we get it from drug dealers, and they could possibly lace the drug with even more harmful substances... I was also going to talk about how the government could tax it and make a ton of money off of it which if anything could help jump start the economy again a little bit. But anyways, thanks a lot for your input, and hopefully I get an A on this paper. It just so happens to be on my favorite thing to talk about in the world

[amsterdamage]

np man!

let me know if you need some links for more info or some references to cite.


EDIT:
You're right legalization will make weed safer, just like alcohol legalization made alcohol safer. But this isn't an argument that'll persuade a non-smoker that legalization is a good thing. You've got to make your argument compelling to non-smokers in order to successfully argue for legalization.

As the VCL said in 1932, "It required no particular insight into the nature of democracy to know that when the weight of public opinion demanded repeal of Prohibition, Prohibition would be repealed."
http://www.druglibrary.org/SCHAFFER/alcohol/vcl1.htm

[NICKOTINE]

I hand wrote just about everything you said lol.

If anyone else has anything they think might be useful for me to use in my paper let me know.

when i research the topic all the websites have all the same old information. so i am resorting to my trusty forum-goers :]

[amsterdamage]

have you checked out LEAP's site yet?

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php


These are cops, judges, prosecutors, etc who believe that prohibition is a dangerous policy and should be replaced with legalization for all drugs. Now there's a different perspective!

Check out some of the video interviews under "multimedia".

[get5007]

All I have to say is....lame topic....most professors up at my school won't even let you write a paper on that subject because it is written about so often. You should go radical and write a paper on why all drugs should be legal. Try to proove that.

[amsterdamage]

it's the same argument. The more dangerous the drug the more important it is for us to control its distribution.


Alcohol and tobacco are controlled by a policy of legalization. The outcome is customers are carded, minors are refused sales, regulations governing when the drugs are sold, where they're sold and to whom they're sold are strictly enforced.

Marijuana, meth and heroin are controlled by a policy of prohibition. The outcome is they're sold by illegal suppliers who sell anywhere they want to sell, whenever they want to sell, and to whomever they want to sell. There are NO restrictions placed on the age of the customers whatsoever.

A prohibited market is an unregulated market.

[get5007]

Originally Posted by amsterdamage

it's the same argument. The more dangerous the drug the more important it is for us to control its distribution.


Alcohol and tobacco are controlled by a policy of legalization. The outcome is customers are carded, minors are refused sales, regulations governing when the drugs are sold, where they're sold and to whom they're sold are strictly enforced.

Marijuana, meth and heroin are controlled by a policy of prohibition. The outcome is they're sold by illegal suppliers who sell anywhere they want to sell, whenever they want to sell, and to whomever they want to sell. There are NO restrictions placed on the age of the customers whatsoever.

A prohibited market is an unregulated market.

Well what I was trying to get at is argue about personal responsibilty and our freedoms. Not necessarly using drug facts to support it like, "o marijuana is not so bad look at alcohol and its death rate" Argue about responsibility, freedoms, drug education (maybe equivocate it to sex education?) idk all I am saying is there are soo many marijuana papers. Try something abstract and different, I've graded way to many marijuana papers that were just like strait facts. booorring...just tryin to throw some ideas your way

[NICKOTINE]

Originally Posted by get5007

All I have to say is....lame topic....most professors up at my school won't even let you write a paper on that subject because it is written about so often. You should go radical and write a paper on why all drugs should be legal. Try to proove that.

the topic was actually assigned to me so really i didn't pick it but i sure do love it

[amsterdamage]

Originally Posted by get5007

Well what I was trying to get at is argue about personal responsibilty and our freedoms. Not necessarly using drug facts to support it like, "o marijuana is not so bad look at alcohol and its death rate" Argue about responsibility, freedoms, drug education (maybe equivocate it to sex education?) idk all I am saying is there are soo many marijuana papers. Try something abstract and different, I've graded way to many marijuana papers that were just like strait facts. booorring...just tryin to throw some ideas your way

I like what you're saying man, but I believe that the majority of the people in this country live with a kind of a siege mentality where they feel they have to support their government no matter what or the "enemy" (whomever that might be) will overrun our land, bringing down civilization as we know it and laying waste to our cities.

So arguing for civil liberties (which I throughly believe in) is to argue for weaker government and increased chance of imminent and catastrophic destruction.

[w0wz]

i just wrote a 8 page eassy about legalization for my anthropology, psychology, sociology class, ill post the good stuff that i wrote tomorrow, gotta find it

[Poisongage]

Originally Posted by NICKOTINE

Alright so I am writing a 7-10 page essay on the legalization of marijuana for school. So basically I need a ton of good examples to why it would be a good idea to legalize marijuana. Don't worry, I won't quote you in my paper... But thanks to everyone who helps out.

Here you go:

http://www.sethgroup.org/videos.html

http://www.hongpong.com/node/1081

These links are a video and an article, regarding Cannabis' cancer-healing potentials.

The top video should be very useful to you, as you can include it's results in your medicinal part of the paper.

You can from this video argue that legalization could be done in two stages: medicinally at first, recreationally second.

Also feel free to check out www.phoenixtears.ca (the homepage of Rick Simpson, where plenty of nice information can be found about the healing properties of cannabis) and www.phoenixtearsmovie.com (the documentary Rick Simpson did on medicinal cannabis).

Also check out Jack Herrers site, and also his book. They contain tons of reasons why it should be legalized.

[Madrid]

Wow

well i feel very inadequate saying this lol but

up top at the sticky the http://forum.grasscity.com/legalizat...ng-points.html Marijuana talking points

they have some good facts in there that go for legalization as well

[legalize_ganja]

.... watch the union if you havent already, i know someone just posted a thread about it but hears a link to the full vid

The Union: The business behind getting high.

also check out norml.org and leap.cc and maby abovetheignorance.com or what ever,
i would say also check out NJWeedMan.com too, he talks alot about how were suposed to have freedom of religion but rastafarians cant use marijuana as a sacrement. (catholic people give kids wine) so yeah think about that. I could easily do a 7 page thing on legalization. Its EASY!