My term paper for English class was a research/argumentation paper advocating the legalization of marijuana. As an ex-pot smoker who only abstains because in order to get a job on this planet I will have to be subjected to drug testing, this is a real hot-button issue for me. Rather than reiterate my arguments from my paper, I will refer you toNORML’s web site for cites for the following…
Marijuana is not a “gateway drug” that leads to harder drugs such as heroin and cocaine.
Marijuana does not cause brain damage, chromosome damage, birth defects or infertility.
Marijuana is not a major road safety hazard, and is not a major factor in traffic accidents.
Additionally, the “amotivational syndrome” has proven to be a myth. In their book Marijuana Myths Marijuana Facts a review of the scientific evidence, Zimmer and Morgan cite studies that show that marijuana users are no less productive or employable than their non-pot-smoking counterparts.
The same book cites evidence that marijuana is not physically addictive, and that caffiene has more dependence-causing potential.
So, given the scientific evidence, why are so many people, politicians in particular, against the idea of legalizing marijuana?
It’s an unfortunately effective political attack to say someone is soft on crime. The fact that the crime is a stupid crime is a little too far for many minds to stretch to.
Well, if it were legal the snack food industries would positively explode! We’d all become obese® and we’d smoke nice relaxing joints instead of lung-busting tobacco products that give you a sick buzz the first few times.
Tobacco interests would have something to say about it.
And what about all those DEA employees who would have to then deal with dangerous drug people who make & peddle meth, opiates and coke?
The War On Americans I Mean Drugs puts a lot of money in a lot of pockets, and marijuana is a big part of it. Legalization would mean all those people would have to get real jobs.
I don’t think so. Before I turned 21, I found it much easier to get pot than alcohol, because people who sell pot have no reason to care about age. If it were legal, they would.
Because producers and sellers of marijuana don’t give millions of dollars to political parties and candidates the way producers and sellers of tobacco and alcohol do.
As a further argument to this point of view, the next time you are in the supermarket, take a look at the bottled water. It has the nutrition information label on it. It tells you how many calories are in water. It tells you which vitamins are in water. Now head over the the beer. See how many calories are in beer. Or how much vitamin A. Or sodium. In case you don’t already know, you cannot get this information.
I heard a rumor once (which I have been so far unable to verify) that Marlboro has already got a patent on the name Marlboro Greens in anticipation that weed becomes legal.
How about this: so that all the people it puts in prison aren’t working at anything productive, but instead can be supported at the expense of the taxpyer. Basically, it’s just the social conservative version of a massive “from work to welfare” system, only in disguise.
You do realise that people who are introduced to the criminal justice system through possession of small amounts of marijuana are stripped of any reasonable opportunities?
This is far more damaging than the myth of pot making you lazy.
It is a “gateway” drug. But, so are tobacco and alcohol. I don’t know if there are any heroin addicts that haven’t smoked tobacco or gotten drunk. Any recreational drug is a possible gateway to other drugs. I think marijuana is more so then tobacco and alcohol mainly because it is illegal though. In order to buy marijuana you need to make contact with a criminal, a drugdealer. So to me, this is not a good argument against legalisation since the problem is mainly caused by the fact that it is illegal.
It’s bad for you. It’s probably less physically dangerous then alcohol, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t healthy. There is a real “amotivational” problem too, but that should be compared to alcoholics not to people that have some drinks when they go out on a saturday or a glass of wine with dinner. People that smoke pot all day are about as productive as those who drink booze all day. Since it (if legalised at least) isn’t more dangerous then already legal substances, this isn’t a very good argument against legalisation either.
It’s not an integrated part of the culture. At least in Sweden. My friend who is a big supporter of cannabis talked about his experiences in India. People there couldn’t, according to him, handle alcohol. They drank too much and threw up… overdosed in another word. In Sweden, we’re not used to cannabis. The society doesn’t have the same mechanisms to handle it as it does alcohol (alcohol being a very BIG part of our culture). Just as the earlier arguments, the problem is more or less caused by the fact that it is illegal, if to a lesser extent in this case. I’m sure we could learn to smoke just the right amount and how to behave if we had some time.
The arguments for legalising it is pretty much that unless there is a valid reason to outlaw something, it should be legal. That’s an ideology I can subscribe to. Also, there is a very real problem with drug trafficking etc, that could possibly be helped if this particular domain was taken from under the control of “kingpins” and put under government control.
Other then the fact that it might raise the usage of it, hell who am I kidding, it WILL raise the usage of it, I am all for legalising it.
Oh, and all of the above is technically “opinions” (They’re not! They are solid facts!) and any claims for “cite!” will be met by either “Ah shaddap” or “I’m rubber, you’re glue”. Besides, if you don’t agree with me, you’re stupid, and nothing I show you will change that.
I was gonna post a great response
but then I got high.
I was gonna argue lots and lots
but then I got high.
What I was gonna say has been forgot
and I know why.
Because I got high
Because I got high
Because I got high.
on this?