Marijuana: To Legalize or Not?

The number of Americans who oppose the legalization of marijuana has fallen by 20%

since 2010 and now stands at 32% (Daniller). Yet, the controversial debate about whether to

legalize the use of recreational and medical cannabis rages on, with conflicting findings from

research. Currently, it is legal to use marijuana recreationally in eleven states plus the District of

Columbia, and for medical purposes in thirty-three states and the District of Columbia, Guam,

Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands (Daniller). Aside from being such a hotly contested issue,

the legalization of marijuana is divisive both politically and generationally, with 69% of young

adults and 68% of Democrats being in pro-legalize and 48% of Americans over the age of 65 and

12% of Republicans against any form of legalization (Daniller). Whereas those in favor of

legalization argue that marijuana use should be a personal choice, has medical benefits and could

generate revenue, those opposed highlight how it is a societal concern, is a dangerous substance

and that the costs will outweigh any revenue generated from making its use legal.

Those in support of legalization of marijuana, especially for recreational use, claim that it

should be up to a person to decide and that in prohibiting its use, the government is infringing on

individual rights and freedoms by trying to impose a single standard of healthy living (Malleck).

Furthermore, prohibition only creates more demand for black market, unregulated product,

which can be dangerous yet still readily available to consumers (Riffle). In fact, many parallels

have been drawn between the crusade for marijuana legalization and the alcohol prohibition of

the 1930s, with proponents pointing out that the fear of social decline, moral corruption and

economic collapse were the same issues that the Temperance Movement cited when it was

fighting the legalization alcohol, but these concerns were later proved to be unfounded

(Malleck). Even so, anti-marijuana crusaders insist that the negative societal impact of making
marijuana legal is enough to justify restriction by the government. According to Jones and Jones,

the number of marijuana users increased in Oregon, Colorado and Australia when cannabis use

was either legalized or decriminalized (255). The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,

and Medicine also found that there was a notable increase in motor vehicle crashes and overdose

injuries in children in the states where cannabis use was made legal (237).

Proponents of making marijuana use legal argue that has medical benefits. In fact, while

91% of American adults support legalization, 32% think it should be purely for medical use

(Daniller). Marijuana has been used to manage a wide array of medical conditions, such as

nausea and vomiting, seizures neurological disorders, pain and inflammation relief (Ciccone

243). Additionally, it has been found to stimulate the appetites of patients with diseases that

cause muscle waste such as AIDS, thus increasing their intake of nutrients (Ciccone 243).

According to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the laws

restricting its use hinders effective research into the effects of marijuana on its consumers,

making it difficult to quantify or qualify any beneficial medical uses (378). On the other hand,

opponents of legalization dispute the health claims, stating that using it has an adverse impact on

the human body. Marijuana is typically consumed in three forms: smoking, vaping and ingesting

products that have been infused with cannabinoids (Ciccone 241). Smoking is harmful to the

respiratory system since it exposes the inner lining of the lungs to hot, dry air laced with toxins,

which can restrict pulmonary function and exacerbate existing conditions such as asthma

(Ciccone 241). Additionally, research by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and

Medicine suggests that the use of cannabis or cannabinoids could inhibit the body’s immunity,

particularly in patients with HIV or viral Hepatitis C (200). It was also found that there is a direct

correlation between cannabis use and motor vehicle accidents (National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine 230). Furthermore, Ciccone reports that the drug “can cause short-

term impairments in cognition, memory, alertness, coordination and balance” (244).

Lastly, legalization proponents cite the revenue that could be generated by the

government as a reason to eliminate all anti-cannabis legislation. It is estimated that US

marijuana market provides Mexican drug cartels $1.5 million each year, an amount which would

be redirected to the government and legal local businesses through legalization and regulation

(Delman). Colorado, one of the first states to legalize cannabis use collected $135 million in

taxes and fees from the industry within the first two years of the legislation (Hajizadeh 454).

Hajizadeh also points out that by imposing a sin tax, the government can increase its share of

revenue from the billion-dollar industry (454). In contrast, those who are anti-legalization assert

that any revenue generated from cannabis related industries is far outnumbered by its cost.

Furthermore, the annual cost of vehicle crashes is $242 billion (National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration 1). This number will increase with the legalization of marijuana, since there is a

proven increase in motor vehicle crashes in the states where cannabis use was made legal

(National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 237).

In conclusion, proponents of marijuana legalization argue that it has benefits, and its use

should come down to personal choice while opponents insist that the positive effects are

negligible and far outweighed by the negative. The pro-cannabis camp asserts that it should be a

personal choice and the government should not impose morals on its citizens while anti-cannabis

crusaders propose that marijuana use’s negative impact on society is large enough to warrant

government intervention. Proponents of legalization point to evidence of medical benefits of

cannabis, which is refuted by opponents, who also cite evidence of adverse effects on health with

long term use. Lastly, where proponents point to the promise of revenue as an advantage of
legalization, opponents warn that the cost negates any funds raised. What remains uncontested is

that this debate is not one likely to be settled in the near future.