Anti Legalization Critical Thinking Essay Example for Free

Anti Legalization Critical Thinking Essay The aim of this paper is to logically apply reason to assess the arguments for the legalization of marijuana, and by doing so point out flaws in these arguments. Furthermore, this paper will assess the credibility and the source of these arguments, and present counter arguments to conclude that marijuana should not be a legal drug in California and the rest of the United States. First I will consider The National Organizations for the Reform of Marijuana Laws â€Å"Principles of Responsible Marijuana Use† which is the basis for their argument for the legalization of marijuana, and how this set of principles is flawed. Second I will consider the claim â€Å"that marijuana should be legal in a taxed and regulated manner† and also consider the source of this claim. Third I will emphasize the negative social effects of legalization of marijuana in order to counter the claims for legalization. Finally I will conclude that given these factors, legalization of marijuana would be harmful and detrimental to society as a whole, possessing little or no economic, social, or medical benefits. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Law is the leading lobbyist group for the legalization of marijuana in the United States. This organization has made it their commitment to have marijuana legalized in a taxable way as tobacco and alcohol currently are. This organization rationalizes its arguments with a document called the â€Å"Principles of Responsible Marijuana Use† in which is attempts to justify marijuana reform in a socially accepted manner. The very title of the document is ambiguous, the word â€Å"responsible† is a very circumstantial term and is subject to many different interpretations. Furthermore the document assumes that if legalized, citizens will adhere to this unofficial â€Å"code of ethics†, however we can evidently see with alcohol and tobacco that there is abuse regardless of the regulating laws. Despite this, NORML attempts to lay out their interpretation for what â€Å"responsible marijuana use† is ( 4 ); their first point is that marijuana is to be for adults only, and that it is irresponsible to provide marijuana to children. The terms â€Å"adults† and â€Å"children† again are ambiguous, it is not clear where the line is drawn between what defines an adult or a child. This is a concern because many would assume a child is no longer a child after eighteen years of age, thus it can be determined that eighteen and over is considered a â€Å"responsible† user. It need not be said that current alcohol restrictions limit a user to twenty-one and over. According to a 2005 Monitoring the Future Study, â€Å"three-fourths of 12th graders, more than two-thirds of 10th graders, and about two in every five 8th graders have consumed alcohol†( 5 ), with this evidence it would be wishful thinking to assume marijuana would be any different. To further consider this point 6.8% of children ages 12 to 17 use marijuana on an occasional basis ( 5 ). It would be reasonable to conclude that if marijuana was legalized that number would increase drastically. Second the NORMLs â€Å"Principles of Responsible Marijuana Use† attempts to rationalize legal marijuana use by claiming that if legalized responsible users will refrain from driving ( 4 ). Although an illegal drug, it is not surprising that there are already statistics regarding marijuana impaired driving in many states. California who just recently had a proposition for the legalization of marijuana has some of the most relevant statistics; there are various counties in California that have a 16% or higher marijuana involved traffic fatalities ( 3 ). This number would only increase with the legalization, and that is not to include the the amount of non fatal accidents that would occur annually. A recent study by Alfred Crancer and Alan Crancer projected that traffic fatalities would increase by as much as 300% with legalization ( 3 ). Third NORML claims that â€Å"The responsible cannabis user will carefully consider his/her set and setting, regulating use accordingly†. In this claim there is much room for a line-drawing fallacy, in which it is difficult and conveniently vague and up to the individual to determine what set and setting is actually appropriate for usage. It could be assumed under this principle that its safe to use marijuana while caring for children, elderly, while driving, and also very relevantly while working. Forth NORML claims that a responsible marijuana user will â€Å"resist abuse†. They define abuse by: â€Å"Abuse means harm. Some cannabis use is harmful; most is not. That which is harmful should be discouraged; that which is not need not be.† A clever statement however invalid and illogical. Drug abuse is defined as an uncontrollable urge for constant seeking of intoxicants ( 2 ). Many users would be unaware of their abuse, until the point in which it has destroyed their livelihood, relationships, economic security, and health. Legalization would only increase the numbers of active addicts, and make marijuana readily available for them, and being legal, consequently restraining family, friends, and the courts from restricting an addicts use before to much harm is done. The final claim made by NORML is a â€Å"Respect for Rights of Others† in which they attempt to justify the fact that if marijuana was legal, non users will have to deal with it. Again it is wishful thinking to see that users will have respect for the others who are not users, however while illegal we can see that many still cultivate marijuana, drive under the influence of it, and use it as socially as possible. A strict layout of parameters that must be followed with public and private use of the drug would be acceptable, however advocates for the cause prefer the vagueness, in which there are no absolute lines that can be drawn between legal and illegal use (ie. Driving, social events, age, etc.). The entire document is a rationalization and does not seem to give a valid or true pretense to satisfy desires. The most relevant claim argued against in this paper is the claim that â€Å"marijuana should be legal in a taxed and regulated manner†. This claim by itself has the vagueness and ambiguity of a typical bill or legislation. It is this vagueness and ambiguity that encroach on the freedoms of citizens everyday. The fact is that marijuana is a drug, it was made illegal by the Federal Controlled Substance Act of 1970 to stop the violence and abuse that was common practice. We have seen in other countries failed attempts to regulate and tax drugs, like the Netherlands, and we have seen the damage drugs can have on society as a hole, like the dangerous drug cartels that rule Mexico. In evaluating this claim it is also important to consider the sources, one of the biggest supporters of marijuana legalization is Robert Lee. Lee is president of â€Å"Oaksterdam University† a school that teaches students how to cultivate, grow, process, and cure marijuana ( 3 ). It would seem highly logical to acknowledge that this man is not interested in the social repercussions of legalization. His motive is clearly for the profit that can come from legalization. Legalization would drastically increase the amount of growers and interested parties in his school. Another strong voice in pro-legalization is the company S.K. Seymour LLC which is a Medical Cannabis Provider ( 3 ), who again would see a dramatic increase in profit and sales due to the fact that they can open up their business to the public, and not just medical marijuana patients. It seems that neither of the sources, from the research done, are interested in the negative and adverse affects of legalization and only interested in the lucrative value of legalization. It is also important to analyze the negative social effects of marijuana on society, most notably the economic affects and the medical effects. Recent proposition 19 in California stated that: â€Å"No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.† Basically stating that employers can no longer regulate marijuana use while working unless it can show that performance is being impaired by use ( 3 ). Proposition 19 also is in conflict with the Federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 which prohibits the use of marijuana for recreational use. This would be a mistake by California due to the fact that the state would loose billions of federal dollars in the form of grants and aid called for by the Federal Workplace Act of 1988. Not only would government loose money but also schools and medical centers can potentially be affected ( 3 ). The health risks for marijuana usage are as noteworthy as the social repercussions. Marijuana is known to cause A-motivational syndrome, which is a depressed state of the brain in which reaction times and motivation is affected by long term use ( 3 ). Furthermore â€Å"the gateway theory† blames marijuana as the compromise that leads an individual to try harder more harmful drugs. Lastly marijuana has been placed on the California Proposition 65 list of carcinogenic materials, as proven materials that cause cancer ( 3 ). In this paper I argued that the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws definitions and reasoning for a â€Å"responsible legal† user is flawed. Many of their arguments are invalid and lack sound reasoning to a conclusion. That the claim that marijuana should be legal and taxed is not a fully developed claim and that the sources of the claims motives are not sound in reasoning for legalization. Finally I argued that if marijuana is legalized it would be detrimental to society specifically regarding medical and economic problems. The arguments for legalization are not convincing and present many fallacies, Legalization supporters have the wrong idea of controlled use.